Abortion and Cancer Risk

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.

SundaySilence

CorporateWhore wrote:

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.

Ahnimus

Ok, let's look at the source Elliot Institute

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

Ahnimus

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".

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/cmaj-study.shtml

cincybearcat

Ahnimus wrote:

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".

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.

miller8966

SundaySilence wrote:

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.

Jeanie

cincybearcat wrote:

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!!

hippiemom

cincybearcat wrote:

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."

Ahnimus

Coalition Members

Elliot Institute
Life Issues Institute
Society of Catholic Social Scientists
http://www.elliotinstitute.org/coalition.htm

miller8966

hippiemom wrote:

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."

how about baby killers?

i kid

hippiemom

miller8966 wrote:

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 know why he doesn't appreciate science, you'd have to ask him. But after reading his nonsense for years, I know that he doesn't.