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.
Perhaps they should do a study to determine how many abortions are equal to a full term pregnancy in risk prevention. Or maybe they could mine this data and find out.
As I mentioned earlier it doesn't matter. This is an issue for the patient and their doctor, not for your perverse political agenda. And the website you mentioned distorts the findings in studies it references. Science from a political website should be taken with a grain of salt...not that you appreciate science to begin with.
But if scientists really can end all disease and make the children of future generations better, shouldn't we embrace the chance to create a utopia here on this earth instead of hoping in an uncertain after-life?
The view that all human life is sacred tells us that human beings are inherently valuable, not for what they can do, but simply for what they are. In Judeo-Christian heritage, the inherent value of human life lies in the belief that human beings are made in the image and likeness of God. To mistreat human life, therefore, is to mock the image and likeness of God.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Lead author David Reardon's only apparent vocation is running an anti-abortion propaganda mill out of Illinois (The Elliot Institute, http://www.afterabortion.org) since 1988, although he does have a Ph.D in Social Sciences. The other co-authors include a psychiatrist and a Family Relations Ph.D, both of whom specialize in exposing the "dangers" of abortion; a graduate student in psychology; and a medical doctor. The latter's affiliation was cited as the "John Bosco Institute." However, an Internet search revealed that this lofty-sounding place is actually the St. John Bosco Catechital Institute, a Catholic divinity school. Not only does such an affiliation have zero relevance to medical research, the omission of key words indicates a deliberate attempt to cloak its real nature.
At any rate, the real danger in research articles such as these is the potential for misinterpretation by the media and misuse by anti-choice groups. Although the study data may be accurate by itself, it's the conclusions leapt to that are the problem. Reardon's Elliot Institute is notorious for publishing research that suggests abortion is bad for women—but this conclusion does not flow from the data because of the same biased assumption that "correlation equals causation".
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Lead author David Reardon's only apparent vocation is running an anti-abortion propaganda mill out of Illinois (The Elliot Institute, http://www.afterabortion.org) since 1988, although he does have a Ph.D in Social Sciences. The other co-authors include a psychiatrist and a Family Relations Ph.D, both of whom specialize in exposing the "dangers" of abortion; a graduate student in psychology; and a medical doctor. The latter's affiliation was cited as the "John Bosco Institute." However, an Internet search revealed that this lofty-sounding place is actually the St. John Bosco Catechital Institute, a Catholic divinity school. Not only does such an affiliation have zero relevance to medical research, the omission of key words indicates a deliberate attempt to cloak its real nature.
At any rate, the real danger in research articles such as these is the potential for misinterpretation by the media and misuse by anti-choice groups. Although the study data may be accurate by itself, it's the conclusions leapt to that are the problem. Reardon's Elliot Institute is notorious for publishing research that suggests abortion is bad for women—but this conclusion does not flow from the data because of the same biased assumption that "correlation equals causation".
As I mentioned earlier it doesn't matter. This is an issue for the patient and their doctor, not for your perverse political agenda. And the website you mentioned distorts the findings in studies it references. Science from a political website should be taken with a grain of salt...not that you appreciate science to begin with.
LOL at your attack. Because liberals on this board dont advocate an aegnda with their posts.
And why doesn't he appreciate science? Where is the facts that corporate whroe doesnt appreciate science....or are you just lying.
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.
Sorry! Should have vented my spleen in the appropriate direction! There's something about some people around here that just make me lose my sense of humor completely!!
If I see some arrogant asshole use the term anti-choice 1 more time I may snap.
I'll start referring to the other side by whichever term they'd like just as soon as they afford me the same respect and I stop seeing the term "pro-abortion."
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'll start referring to the other side by whichever term they'd like just as soon as they afford me the same respect and I stop seeing the term "pro-abortion."
Reardon has been criticized for potential bias in his studies. Barbara Major, of the University of Santa Barbara's department of psychology, criticizes Reardon for publicly stating desired political outcomes from his research, and for comparing women who have had an abortion to women who completed their pregnancies normally. Major and other critics assert that a more appropriate comparison would be to women who wished to abort their pregnancy but chose not to or were not allowed to do so.[3]
Credentials
Reardon acquired a Ph.D. in biomedical ethics from Pacific Western University, an unaccredited higher education institution considered by many to be a diploma mill.[4] [5]
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'll start referring to the other side by whichever term they'd like just as soon as they afford me the same respect and I stop seeing the term "pro-abortion."
Done. You are now officially labeled 'Baby Killer Enabler'.
Credentials
Reardon acquired a Ph.D. in biomedical ethics from Pacific Western University, an unaccredited higher education institution considered by many to be a diploma mill.[4] [5]
Pacific Western University (PWU) is a distance learning university located in San Diego, California. PWU is not accredited[1][2] by any recognised accreditation body. As such, its degrees may not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions.
Pacific Western University was established in February 1977. Currently, it offers Associate, Bachelor, and Master degrees in Business Administration, General Studies, Public Administration, and Leadership Management.
Pacific Western University operated in the Brentwood, California suburb of Los Angeles for its first twenty years, and then moved to Westwood, California where it remained until relocating to San Diego, California in January 2006.
According to Inside Higher Education, the school is considering changing its name to distance itself from past controversies[3].
Pacific Western University in Hawaii
The present Pacific Western University in California "should not be confused with"[4], the similarly-named and now defunct Pacific Western University in Hawaii, which was shut down following an action by the Hawaii state Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA)[5], although Bears' Guide asserts "Same Ownership as Pacific Western University (Hawaii), which is run by the same people from the same building."[6]. This is supported by Inside Higher Education[3]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Western_University
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Just like the anti-choice Christian lunatics to try and link abortion and cancer. Next year it I bet they link abortion with the increase of gay ministers.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Just like the anti-choice Christian lunatics to try and link abortion and cancer. Next year it I bet they link abortion with the increase of gay ministers.
I've only ever linked abortion to a 50% mortality rate. 2 go into the office, only 1 comes out alive.
What are the instances that corporate doesnt appreciate science though.
You cant make a baseless claim against someone on the board without facts to support it.
Sure I can. I just did.
I'm not going to go through all his posts ... and besides, most of them aren't even here anymore. I've developed an opinion of him over a long period of time, as I'm sure he has of me.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Well, dudes not even a real scientist and his organization is motivated and funded by religious organizations. I'd say the research is bunk.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Well, dudes not even a real scientist and his organization is motivated and funded by religious organizations. I'd say the research is bunk.
Certainly it would make the data compromised...but no matter the agenda or the funding, the research still has the potential to be accurate. But, based on everything I read here, that looks like a very slim chance.
And to be honest, it doesn't matter to me. Even if it was true, an increased chance of getting cancer after having an abortion wouldn't come close to being at the top of my list of why abortions should be illegal.
Certainly it would make the data compromised...but no matter the agenda or the funding, the research still has the potential to be accurate. But, based on everything I read here, that looks like a very slim chance.
And to be honest, it doesn't matter to me. Even if it was true, an increased chance of getting cancer after having an abortion wouldn't come close to being at the top of my list of why abortions should be illegal.
Well, I've learned to investigate research. There are so many bunk headlines in the news. You really gotta investigate and if there is potential for inaccuracy then I can't really trust it.
If, this research was funded by religious groups and the findings were opposite, I might be more inclined to believe it. But it still needs corroboration and I don't see any research backing this up. I doubt it was ever released for peer review before being published and that's just deceitful.
Nope, I don't trust it. Put it with the fashion gene article.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Done. You are now officially labeled 'Baby Killer Enabler'.
I know what you want to be called.
I was hoping for something with a little more flair, to be honest. But I'm sort of out of it today and I'm drawing a blank. That one is just a little ... I dunno ... blah ... but I do thank you for aiming to please
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
I was hoping for something with a little more flair, to be honest. But I'm sort of out of it today and I'm drawing a blank. That one is just a little ... I dunno ... blah ... but I do thank you for aiming to please
Pro-population control?
Anti-fruit of the loin?
Pro-genocide as a means of birth control?
Hmmm, I don't like any of those. I'm not very creative today, sorry.
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.
abortion=murder.......
period...
hello hippie...........
Take me piece by piece..... Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You trying to label anti-abortion people all of those things? The only one that makes any sense is Anti-choice and that is the dumbest statement of all.
You trying to label anti-abortion people all of those things? The only one that makes any sense is Anti-choice and that is the dumbest statement of all.
At least I'm nice about it.
I'm not using terms like "Death" and "Genocide"
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You trying to label anti-abortion people all of those things? The only one that makes any sense is Anti-choice and that is the dumbest statement of all.
wouldn't it technically be limited choice? We are all pro choice...we just happen to think abortion shouldn't be one of the choices.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
Comments
Perhaps they should do a study to determine how many abortions are equal to a full term pregnancy in risk prevention. Or maybe they could mine this data and find out.
As I mentioned earlier it doesn't matter. This is an issue for the patient and their doctor, not for your perverse political agenda. And the website you mentioned distorts the findings in studies it references. Science from a political website should be taken with a grain of salt...not that you appreciate science to begin with.
Hey check this
From their FAQ
But if scientists really can end all disease and make the children of future generations better, shouldn't we embrace the chance to create a utopia here on this earth instead of hoping in an uncertain after-life?
The view that all human life is sacred tells us that human beings are inherently valuable, not for what they can do, but simply for what they are. In Judeo-Christian heritage, the inherent value of human life lies in the belief that human beings are made in the image and likeness of God. To mistreat human life, therefore, is to mock the image and likeness of God.
Good, non-bias source Whore.
http://www.elliotinstitute.org/faq.htm
At any rate, the real danger in research articles such as these is the potential for misinterpretation by the media and misuse by anti-choice groups. Although the study data may be accurate by itself, it's the conclusions leapt to that are the problem. Reardon's Elliot Institute is notorious for publishing research that suggests abortion is bad for women—but this conclusion does not flow from the data because of the same biased assumption that "correlation equals causation".
http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/cmaj-study.shtml
If I see some arrogant asshole use the term anti-choice 1 more time I may snap.
LOL at your attack. Because liberals on this board dont advocate an aegnda with their posts.
And why doesn't he appreciate science? Where is the facts that corporate whroe doesnt appreciate science....or are you just lying.
Sorry! Should have vented my spleen in the appropriate direction! There's something about some people around here that just make me lose my sense of humor completely!!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Elliot Institute
Life Issues Institute
Society of Catholic Social Scientists
http://www.elliotinstitute.org/coalition.htm
how about baby killers?
i kid
What are the instances that corporate doesnt appreciate science though.
You cant make a baseless claim against someone on the board without facts to support it.
Credentials
Reardon acquired a Ph.D. in biomedical ethics from Pacific Western University, an unaccredited higher education institution considered by many to be a diploma mill.[4] [5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reardon
Done. You are now officially labeled 'Baby Killer Enabler'.
I know what you want to be called.
Pacific Western University (PWU) is a distance learning university located in San Diego, California. PWU is not accredited[1][2] by any recognised accreditation body. As such, its degrees may not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions.
Pacific Western University was established in February 1977. Currently, it offers Associate, Bachelor, and Master degrees in Business Administration, General Studies, Public Administration, and Leadership Management.
Pacific Western University operated in the Brentwood, California suburb of Los Angeles for its first twenty years, and then moved to Westwood, California where it remained until relocating to San Diego, California in January 2006.
According to Inside Higher Education, the school is considering changing its name to distance itself from past controversies[3].
Pacific Western University in Hawaii
The present Pacific Western University in California "should not be confused with"[4], the similarly-named and now defunct Pacific Western University in Hawaii, which was shut down following an action by the Hawaii state Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA)[5], although Bears' Guide asserts "Same Ownership as Pacific Western University (Hawaii), which is run by the same people from the same building."[6]. This is supported by Inside Higher Education[3].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Western_University
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
I've only ever linked abortion to a 50% mortality rate. 2 go into the office, only 1 comes out alive.
I'm not going to go through all his posts ... and besides, most of them aren't even here anymore. I've developed an opinion of him over a long period of time, as I'm sure he has of me.
Certainly it would make the data compromised...but no matter the agenda or the funding, the research still has the potential to be accurate. But, based on everything I read here, that looks like a very slim chance.
And to be honest, it doesn't matter to me. Even if it was true, an increased chance of getting cancer after having an abortion wouldn't come close to being at the top of my list of why abortions should be illegal.
Well, I've learned to investigate research. There are so many bunk headlines in the news. You really gotta investigate and if there is potential for inaccuracy then I can't really trust it.
If, this research was funded by religious groups and the findings were opposite, I might be more inclined to believe it. But it still needs corroboration and I don't see any research backing this up. I doubt it was ever released for peer review before being published and that's just deceitful.
Nope, I don't trust it. Put it with the fashion gene article.
Pro-population control?
Anti-fruit of the loin?
Pro-genocide as a means of birth control?
Hmmm, I don't like any of those. I'm not very creative today, sorry.
period...
hello hippie...........
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
Pro-Dictatorship
Pro-Bigotry
Pro-Fascism
Anti-Choice
Anti-Freedom
Anti-Reason
Anti-Logic
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
You trying to label anti-abortion people all of those things? The only one that makes any sense is Anti-choice and that is the dumbest statement of all.
At least I'm nice about it.
I'm not using terms like "Death" and "Genocide"
wouldn't it technically be limited choice? We are all pro choice...we just happen to think abortion shouldn't be one of the choices.
Not sure if you noticed that my reply was for Hippiemom and it was in jest.