Abortion and Cancer Risk

CorporateWhore

Women who have abortions run higher risks for certain types of cancer.

"Etiologically, these findings suggest that interrupted pregnancy per se and not predisposition to spontaneous abortion affects ovarian cancer risk."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1468702&dopt=Abstract

Many women have no idea of the kind of risk they are taking when they have an abortion. If they did, perhaps they would not have it. There are consequences for tampering with natural processes, as we can see in nature all of the time. Unfortunately, many liberals refuse to admit it - to the detriment of hundreds of thousands of women who get cancer. They claim they wish to save the life of the mother, but if they really did, then maybe they wouldn't tell her to abort her child.

sponger

What about priests who, under god's rules, aren't allowed to masturbate? Infrequent ejaculation can increase the risk of prostate cancer. Does that mean god wants priests to die of prostate cancer?

CorporateWhore

sponger wrote:

What about priests who, under god's rules, aren't allowed to masturbate? Infrequent ejaculation can increase the risk of prostate cancer. Does that mean god wants priests to die of prostate cancer?

I never said anything about God wanting women to die. Stop trying to change the subject.

sponger

CorporateWhore wrote:

I never said anything about God wanting women to die. Stop trying to change the subject.

"Tampering with natural processes" is a term often used to advocate a belief in "god's will." The expression "tampering with natural processes" is most usually followed by "playing god," so as to reinforce the notion that god is synonymous with all things natural.

CorporateWhore

sponger wrote:

"Tampering with natural processes" is a term often used to advocate a belief in "god's will." The expression "tampering with natural processes" is most usually followed by "playing god," so as to reinforce the notion that god is synonymous with all things natural.

Well that's not what I meant by it. The natural process is NOT to abort the child, which is what causes cancer. The natural process is to have the child. When interrupted, it is no surprise that it can cause cancer.

Here is a website about women who regret their abortions:

http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/

sponger

CorporateWhore wrote:

Well that's not what I meant by it. The natural process is NOT to abort the child, which is what causes cancer. The natural process is to have the child. When interrupted, it is no surprise that it can cause cancer.

Here is a website about women who regret their abortions:

http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/

But, you also made it a liberal vs. conservative argument, which just so happens to typically be a secularism vs. theism argument. I doubt when it comes to abortion that conservatives are concerned about observing the natural process as much as they are obeying god's will.

gue_barium

CW can be a malicious little prick when he feels like it. That's all he's trying to do here. He isn't concerned about the medical "knowledge" being presented in those links, but he is concerning himself with some board members here who have cancer.

gue_barium

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16649609

Résumé / Abstract
While the protective nature of parity with respect to ovarian cancer has been well documented, whether a history of incomplete pregnancy affects ovarian cancer risk is uncertain. Data collected from 739 epithelial ovarian cancer cases and 1,313 community controls in the Delaware Valley from 1994 to 1998 were used to evaluate the relation between gestational length and timing of first induced or spontaneous abortion and ovarian cancer risk. Incomplete pregnancy was not associated with ovarian cancer among nulliparous women or among ever-pregnant women either before or after adjustment for relevant confounders (for nulliparous women, odds ratio (OR) = 1.12, 95% confidence interval (Cl): 0.66, 1.89; for ever-pregnant women, OR = 0.95, 95% Cl: 0.76, 1.18). Among unigravid women, one full-term pregnancy was more protective than an incomplete pregnancy (adjusted OR = 0.29, 95% Cl: 0.15, 0.57). These results were independent of the type of pregnancy loss. Among ever-pregnant women, a spontaneous abortion before a first birth provided significant protection (adjusted OR = 0.47, 95% Cl: 0.30, 0.75), while no significant effect was found for an induced abortion prior to a first birth (adjusted OR = 0.80, 95% Cl: 0.44, 1.47). These data do not support an independent association between incomplete pregnancies, either spontaneous or induced, and ovarian cancer risk.

Lesbelges

sponger wrote:

What about priests who, under god's rules, aren't allowed to masturbate? Infrequent ejaculation can increase the risk of prostate cancer. Does that mean god wants priests to die of prostate cancer?

Really? I didnt know that! I must be immune to prostate cancer by now! sweet

Heineken Helen

double post

Heineken Helen

CorporateWhore wrote:

Women who have abortions run higher risks for certain types of cancer.

"Etiologically, these findings suggest that interrupted pregnancy per se and not predisposition to spontaneous abortion affects ovarian cancer risk."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1468702&dopt=Abstract

Many women have no idea of the kind of risk they are taking when they have an abortion. If they did, perhaps they would not have it. There are consequences for tampering with natural processes, as we can see in nature all of the time. Unfortunately, many liberals refuse to admit it - to the detriment of hundreds of thousands of women who get cancer. They claim they wish to save the life of the mother, but if they really did, then maybe they wouldn't tell her to abort her child.

Not all pro CHOICE people are 'liberals' and very few pro CHOICE people will TELL someone to have an abortion :rolleyes: so choose your words properly if you want anyone to take you seriously. And of COURSE some women regret having an abortion, just as some women regret NOT going through with it... just as some women regret getting married... or as some women regret not applying for the right college, or some people regret not getting up early enough to go to mass... people regret a LOT of stuff. You have a website there of women who regret having an abortion, what's that supposed to prove? That SOME women regret it??????? Well, I don't think many people will argue with you there :rolleyes:

catefrances

CorporateWhore wrote:

Women who have abortions run higher risks for certain types of cancer.

"Etiologically, these findings suggest that interrupted pregnancy per se and not predisposition to spontaneous abortion affects ovarian cancer risk."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1468702&dopt=Abstract

Many women have no idea of the kind of risk they are taking when they have an abortion. If they did, perhaps they would not have it. There are consequences for tampering with natural processes, as we can see in nature all of the time. Unfortunately, many liberals refuse to admit it - to the detriment of hundreds of thousands of women who get cancer. They claim they wish to save the life of the mother, but if they really did, then maybe they wouldn't tell her to abort her child.

what about induced labours? that is tampering with the natural process as well. should women who do not go into labour spontaneously be concerned that they are at a greater risk of contracting cancer?

Abookamongstthemany

CorporateWhore wrote:

Women who have abortions run higher risks for certain types of cancer.

"Etiologically, these findings suggest that interrupted pregnancy per se and not predisposition to spontaneous abortion affects ovarian cancer risk."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1468702&dopt=Abstract

Many women have no idea of the kind of risk they are taking when they have an abortion. If they did, perhaps they would not have it. There are consequences for tampering with natural processes, as we can see in nature all of the time. Unfortunately, many liberals refuse to admit it - to the detriment of hundreds of thousands of women who get cancer. They claim they wish to save the life of the mother, but if they really did, then maybe they wouldn't tell her to abort her child.

You have serious problems.

miller8966

lol@ liberals. Medical evidence to prove that abortions may lead to cancer and you dispute the evidence?

Same way i feel about global warming

Will1659

This is hilarious. Did either of you two crazy fuckers (miller and CW) actually read that abstract? It refers to a PROTECTIVE effect of incomplete pregnancies. Meaning, there is an INVERSE relationship between the number of incomplete pregnancies and the risk of ovarian cancer. Put even more simply, abortions save you from cancer.

Just read the shit before you post next time.

SundaySilence

CorporateWhore wrote:

Women who have abortions run higher risks for certain types of cancer.

"Etiologically, these findings suggest that interrupted pregnancy per se and not predisposition to spontaneous abortion affects ovarian cancer risk."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1468702&dopt=Abstract

Many women have no idea of the kind of risk they are taking when they have an abortion. If they did, perhaps they would not have it. There are consequences for tampering with natural processes, as we can see in nature all of the time. Unfortunately, many liberals refuse to admit it - to the detriment of hundreds of thousands of women who get cancer. They claim they wish to save the life of the mother, but if they really did, then maybe they wouldn't tell her to abort her child.

Maybe you were standing on your head when you read your article.

Reread your own link (the abstract) This study you've dug up demonstrates a decreased risk of epithelial ovarian cancer in women who have had abortions.

Not that it matters. This should be discussed between a patient and their doctor.

But I agree with you that people undergoing medical procedures should be informed about the risks. Fortunately informed consent is an important part of doctor patient discussion before all surgical procedures. Good for you for advocating a patients right to know CorporateWhore. You can be proud.


Edit:

Will1659 wrote:

This is hilarious. Did either of you two crazy fuckers (miller and CW) actually read that abstract? It refers to a PROTECTIVE effect of incomplete pregnancies. Meaning, there is an INVERSE relationship between the number of incomplete pregnancies and the risk of ovarian cancer. Put even more simply, abortions save you from cancer.

Just read the shit before you post next time.

I see you beat me to it Will1659

Jeanie

That fact that the link has been misinterpreted won't stop him. Corporate Whore is all about pushing his own agenda. And his agenda is the control of women, through the control of women's fertility. He won't stop because he can't. He needs to continue pushing his agenda to feel like he is doing something worthwhile in the world. So he's just going to find another link, another study and post. That's what he does. It's sad but true.

hippiemom

SundaySilence wrote:

Reread your own link (the abstract) This study you've dug up demonstrates a decreased risk of epithelial ovarian cancer in women who have had abortions.

Wow ... so women concerned with avoiding cancer should have as many abortions as they're comfortable with. That's what I love about this board, I learn something every day! If I'd only known then what I know now, I could have had more. Ah well, perhaps this information will help some younger women. Thank you, BarroomWhore, you've done a public service today.

Rushlimbo

Lol @ Miller and the little whore. Reading is fundamental.

cincybearcat

hippiemom wrote:

Wow ... so women concerned with avoiding cancer should have as many abortions as they're comfortable with. That's what I love about this board, I learn something every day! If I'd only known then what I know now, I could have had more. Ah well, perhaps this information will help some younger women. Thank you, BarroomWhore, you've done a public service today.

I still think killing someone to help protect you from cancer is murder.

VictoryGin

CorporateWhore wrote:

Women who have abortions run higher risks for certain types of cancer.

"Etiologically, these findings suggest that interrupted pregnancy per se and not predisposition to spontaneous abortion affects ovarian cancer risk."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1468702&dopt=Abstract

Many women have no idea of the kind of risk they are taking when they have an abortion. If they did, perhaps they would not have it. There are consequences for tampering with natural processes, as we can see in nature all of the time. Unfortunately, many liberals refuse to admit it - to the detriment of hundreds of thousands of women who get cancer. They claim they wish to save the life of the mother, but if they really did, then maybe they wouldn't tell her to abort her child.

wow, not only are you ignorant, but you're fucking sick and twisted.

do you have a mom? a sister? compassion for anyone or anything?

VictoryGin

cincybearcat wrote:

I still think killing someone to help protect you from cancer is murder.

yeah, i think that's exactly why women get abortions.

what the fuck is wrong with people?

cincybearcat

VictoryGin wrote:

yeah, i think that's exactly why women get abortions.

what the fuck is wrong with people?

They think it's ok to kill kids.

Jeanie

cincybearcat wrote:

They think it's ok to kill kids.

Not kids, embryos. And if you want to dance up and down about killing kids why not look no further than Darfour, Sudan, Iraq...........et al.

hippiemom

cincybearcat wrote:

I still think killing someone to help protect you from cancer is murder.

I don't agree that abortion is killing someone, but I'm not actually suggesting women get MORE abortions as a cancer-prevention method. I should have stuck a smilie in there to make that perfectly clear.

Heineken Helen

cincybearcat wrote:

They think it's ok to kill kids.

who's they? The American government? You're confusing your threads again

cincybearcat

Jeanie wrote:

Not kids, embryos. And if you want to dance up and down about killing kids why not look no further than Darfour, Sudan, Iraq...........et al.

I don't have to look any further than down the street.

Anyhow, while I do believe it, I was really only messing around, the same way Hippiemom was, which is the message I replied to.

Ahnimus

I don't get it. Cancer is caused by mutations of the DNA. How does abortion cause the DNA to become mutated?

CorporateWhore

hippiemom wrote:

Wow ... so women concerned with avoiding cancer should have as many abortions as they're comfortable with. That's what I love about this board, I learn something every day! If I'd only known then what I know now, I could have had more. Ah well, perhaps this information will help some younger women. Thank you, BarroomWhore, you've done a public service today.

The point is that we are comparing abortive women to non-abortive women. Not abortive women to women who were never pregnant. Sure, women who have never been pregnant do have more of a chance of ovarian cancer in comparison to post-abortive women - that's all those statistics say.

Here are the real facts:

"CERVICAL, OVARIAN, AND LIVER CANCER:
Women with one abortion face a 2.3 relative risk of cervical cancer, compared to non-aborted women, and women with two or more abortions face a 4.92 relative risk. Similar elevated risks of ovarian and liver cancer have also been linked to single and multiple abortions. These increased cancer rates for post-aborted women are apparently linked to the unnatural disruption of the hormonal changes which accompany pregnancy and untreated cervical damage.(4)"

http://www.afterabortion.info/physica.html

This compares women who have had their babies to women who aborted them. The abstract cited compared women who have aborted their babies to women who were not pregnant to begin with.

This speaks volumes against aborting children because of the health risks.

CorporateWhore

The simple fact is that the abstract I cited showed that women who have their babies have less of a chance of cancer than women who abort their children, although, women who abort their children have less of a risk of cancer than women who never got pregnant in the first place.

Many of you were to quick to judgment. Read the article first before you make stupid claims about aborting as many kids as possible to save yourself from cancer. Maybe, instead you should have your babies because then you'd have even less of a risk.

What I said stands: women who have abortions run a higher risk of certain types of cancer than women who have their children.

miller8966

Great job corporate whore.