Abortion and Cancer Risk

1235»

Comments

  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    onelongsong wrote:
    15 years ago my girlfriend had an abortion even though i offered to raise the child. to this day i wonder about that child. what he/she would have looked like; what they'd be doing right now; what they'd be like. i love that child i never knew.

    just my 2 cents.

    thinking like that can do your head in. :) i have the same thoughts and then i look at the 4 children i have and realise the decisions i've made were for my sanity and everyone's around me.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • SundaySilence
    SundaySilence Posts: 537
    miller8966 wrote:
    LOL at your attack. Because liberals on this board dont advocate an aegnda with their posts.

    His initial study was a reasonable study. It didn't come to the conclusion as he dishonestly presented.

    CorporateWhore has demonstrated a distortion of scientific data often employed by nonscientists with an agenda.

    The essential premise of the findings is that pregnancy is protective against this cancer. And the longer one is pregnant the more effect there is. An abortion and a miscarriage are comparable in their benefit; the actual abortion procedure has no impact.

    CorporateWhore's distortion is similar to suggesting that running one mile a day causes heart disease because you don't run three miles a day.

    But don't take it from me either. Pose these questions to a gynecologist, or at least a medical website where they can be put in context. This discussion is generally meaningless without consideration of the other risks and benefits of pregnancy.
    miller8966 wrote:
    And why doesn't he appreciate science? Where is the facts that corporate whroe doesnt appreciate science....or are you just lying.
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    I believe the CO2 output is minimally affecting climate. Barely enough to notice, especially in comparison to past climate changes.
  • VictoryGin
    VictoryGin Posts: 1,207
    SundaySilence wrote:
    His initial study was a reasonable study. It didn't come to the conclusion as he dishonestly presented.

    CorporateWhore has demonstrated a distortion of scientific data often employed by nonscientists with an agenda.

    The essential premise of the findings is that pregnancy is protective against this cancer. And the longer one is pregnant the more effect there is. An abortion and a miscarriage are comparable in their benefit; the actual abortion procedure has no impact.

    what's also interesting is that i thought birth control pills protected against some cancers, too. i may be wrong (as i'm not in school yet, but cross your fingers), but i thought it was that not ovulating was really what helped protect against some cancer. so pregnancy (which the term may be abbreviated by spontaneous or elective abortion) and birth control pills both help protect against cancer. it's not the abortion procedure that brings on cancer. it's ovulating--in a way.

    this is also one reason why you might see slightly higher rates of cancer in childfree women and lesbians* (if they're not taking ocps). of course, this is not taking into account family history, but there's that too.

    *edit: lesbians who have not been pregnant, sorry. because certainly they can get pregnant, too.
    if you wanna be a friend of mine
    cross the river to the eastside
  • Jeanie
    Jeanie Posts: 9,446
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Or the child could grow up and be mentally retarded and you'd have to wipe his ass his entire life.

    Doesn't mean we should abort him. Mentally retarded babies are just as human as geniuses - in fact, they can be some of the most beautiful people in the world.

    I notice you refer to this child as he. Really can't stand women can you Corporate Whore?

    Nobody is saying that there is anything wrong with babies with problems. Or that they have any more or less right to life than the rest of us. That is a choice for the parents to make. Based on their circumstances and what they are able to provide.
    But what makes you think that the choice to have them and decide to allow them to live a life time of potential suffering is any more altruistic than deciding to end their suffering before it's begun? I strongly doubt, given your previous posts, that you'd be the one wiping "his" ass anyway. I suppose your virgin, saintly, only slept with in wedlock, completely subserviant wife will be the one to do that? As far as I can see you are only here to pass your judgements and to facilitate your personal agenda. You know, not once have I heard you speak of PJ. Why are you here exactly?
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • sponger
    sponger Posts: 3,159
    Lesbelges wrote:
    Really? I didnt know that! I must be immune to prostate cancer by now! sweet

    http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4861
    ...the group with the highest lifetime average of ejaculation - 21 times per month - were a third less likely to develop the cancer than the reference group, who ejaculated four to seven times a month.
    reigning champion

    http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,887
    hippiemom wrote:
    It's possible. It's also possible that the child you would have conceived if you and your wife had taken today off and spent the day in bed would have cured cancer. The world will never know.


    How do you know that we didn't?
    hippiemom = goodness
  • hippiemom
    hippiemom Posts: 3,326
    SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:
    did you just compare a child that was aborted(murdered)............

    to a child that was never conceived????

    hello hippie..........
    No, I'm just saying this is one of the sillier arguments against abortion. The odds are overwhelmingly against any single person being born. Using this logic, we all owe it to humanity to fuck like bunnies and crank out as many babies as we possibly can, just to lessen the odds of the next Dr. Salk winding up on a maxi pad and a gym sock.

    There are arguments against abortion that are not at all silly, but this isn't one of them.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • hippiemom
    hippiemom Posts: 3,326
    cincybearcat wrote:
    How do you know that we didn't?
    She lets you post on the message pit during your romantic afternoon???

    How that woman tolerates you I'll never know ;)
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • Jeanie
    Jeanie Posts: 9,446
    hippiemom wrote:
    .........we all owe it to humanity to fuck like bunnies and crank out as many babies as we possibly can, just to lessen the odds of the next Dr. Salk winding up on a maxi pad and a gym sock........

    :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

    Every sperm is sacred.
    Every sperm is great.
    If a sperm is wasted,
    God gets quite irate.

    :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

    Sorry hippiemom!! But that comment of yours was just too too funny!! LMAO!
    And I couldn't resist an opportunity for a bit of subliminal programming!! :D
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,887
    hippiemom wrote:
    No, I'm just saying this is one of the sillier arguments against abortion. The odds are overwhelmingly against any single person being born. Using this logic, we all owe it to humanity to fuck like bunnies and crank out as many babies as we possibly can, just to lessen the odds of the next Dr. Salk winding up on a maxi pad and a gym sock.

    There are arguments against abortion that are not at all silly, but this isn't one of them.


    Only I didn't use it as an argument against abortion, just a statement.
    hippiemom = goodness

Categories