Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on May 8, 2008 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No, "you'll not read those findings in any women's magazine", or any where else, I'm sure! I am not pro-choice, but I am not totally void of education, IQ, or common sense. either. That, my friend, is the most ridiculous, unsubstantiated, obviously fabricated theory I have ever read! I'm a thknin' I once heard that wearin' a clove of garlic on a string around yer neck would cure that. Yep; that's a good'n!

Posted by create (anonymous) on May 8, 2008 at 5:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Say what? So this begs the question. What if a young woman does not have an abortion, but miscarries instead? Is she equally at risk for breast cancer? Did this so-called "study" include women who miscarried at x amount of weeks? Holy macaroni, people will believe anything!

Posted by TacoBellB (anonymous) on May 8, 2008 at 5:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That's an interesting correlation.
I guess what goes around truly comes around.

Posted by wanderer (anonymous) on May 8, 2008 at 7:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Repeat after me -- correlation does not mean causation. In English, just because two things occur together does not mean one causes the other.

The classic example is the Super Bowl. Eighty percent of the time, when a team from the old NFL wins, the stock market goes up. It's an impressive coincidence. But I don't think anybody's suggesting that the New York Giants really have anything to do with the price of IBM.

I think the same thing is active here.

Posted by MelissaE (anonymous) on May 8, 2008 at 9:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"induced abortion"

Is that an oxy-moron? I think it is.

Or maybe it's some word-play with irony.

Otherwise, I think it's called a miscarriage.

Melissa (did NOT go to med school, OBVIOUSLY)

Posted by TacoBellB (anonymous) on May 9, 2008 at 7:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Gee wanderer, thanks for the English lesson - let me rephrase my sentence for your approval. That's an interesting LINK. There are studies out there that support this theory, yet so many people are jumping on the "that's not possible" train. Why is that? Thinking with your hearts instead of heads?

Wouldn't all abortions be considered induced? Someone has to cause the abortion like a Dr. might put a patient in a medicine induced coma - the dr./medicine caused the coma. Partial birth abortion might be considered an oxymoron since Pro-choicers wouldn't want to think of the fetus as a living thing (birth).

Posted by Penny (anonymous) on May 9, 2008 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In medical terms a miscarriage is called a "spontaneous abortion" which I'm assuming is why the author used the term "induced abortion".

This breast cancer-abortion myth continues to make the rounds, amazing that people continue to believe it!

Posted by rcakmon (anonymous) on May 9, 2008 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What goes around comes around? That's sad. I feel sorry for you.

People really will believe anything as long as it supports their own opinion.

Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on May 9, 2008 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Could someone provide an access to the cited sources? Dot org or dot gov preferred over dot com.

Posted by Penny (anonymous) on May 9, 2008 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's a link to the National Cancer Institute and their conclusions about the risks...

http://www.nci.nih.gov/cancertopics/fact...

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on May 9, 2008 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I tend to believe Virginia about abortions causing cancer. I also believe corn flakes cause pregnancy. My sister ate them every morning for breakfast and ended up pregnant at 17. And, of course, I also believe Rosie O'Donnell's theory that 911 was an inside job by the US government, Rev. Wright's claim that the US government invented AIDS to commit genocide on blacks, that if I buy a Bow Flex home gym I will look exactly like the male model in their TV ad, and that O.J. didn't do it. Keep up the good fight, Virginia; and don't forget to take your meds and do as the doctors say.

Posted by create (anonymous) on May 9, 2008 at 2:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I checked out this issue at Snopes.com, a website devoted to debunking myths. Here is where you can read about this.

You'll have to read down several paragraphs to see the reference to the abortion causing breast cancer. Let me give you a quick rundown. Gary Heavin, founder of Curves exercise studios, is a pro-lifer/ "...the organizations he funds are spreading the lie that abortions lead to an increased risk of breast cancer."
http://www.snopes.com/business/alliance/...

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on May 9, 2008 at 10:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Abortion may or may not cause breast cancer. I don't know one way or the other. I do know, however, that it is the intentional and premeditated killing of a human being (in other words, it meets exactly the definition of Murder as set forth in K.S.A. 21-3401(a)).

Posted by sexingthecherry (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 7:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow. Jayhawker, that is wholly irrelevant. Thanks for contributing nothing to the conversation.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 9:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Unfortunately, jayhawker, very few with a post-graduate education in the discipline of law agree with you. And, as the naughty cherry said above, "that is wholly irrelevant" and has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not abortions cause cancer, which any person with an IQ over 60 knows, does not.

Posted by emporialifer (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 7:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jayhawker,
Unfortunately many people do not like to be reminded of the ugly truth. Since cherry & Bj feel they are the forum police and can tell someone whether or not their comments are relevant, I'll play devil's advocate here and say that your comment had to do with abortion and death, which this story has to do with abortion and cancer (which the end result is typically death), so I see nothing wrong with your post. At least you are standing up for what you believe in, which is more than most individuals with post graduate degrees in law would do. There are probably many things that someone with a post-graduate education in law would disagree with - obviously they are lawyers - they will agree/disagree with whatever makes their case.

Let the insulting of my intelligence level or relevance of my comment begin.

Posted by Absolute (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think that emporialifer was able to post something even MORE irrelevant to this discussion than jayhawker!!!

Let me break it down for you, whether abortion is right or wrong, has *nothing* to do with the question of whether a history of an abortion increases a person's risk for breast cancer.

Posted by emporialifer (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And what exactly did Absolute, Cherry & Bj contribute with their responses? Nada. If you don't find relevance in a comment, you can choose to simply not reply.

Posted by emporialifer (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Kstre,
I did not claim that my comment was any different - it was completely off the topic of abortion and cancer. However, I was simply saying that rather than cut someone down, if a person feels a comment has no relevance, they could just ignore it.

I apologize if I misinterpreted the comments, but I thought cherry & Bj's responses were rude and uncalled for, so I was simply standing up for Jayhawker (not like that person needed it, but that is my nature). I'm not innocent. I've baited, been baited, been overly rude or sarcastic, but I've tried to go back and make amends for those instances as I do realize that it is not worth it.

Since I have nothing further of relevance on this topic to contribute since I have not read the above mentioned studies or done all the homework on the topic, I will be done now.

Posted by sexingthecherry (anonymous) on May 18, 2008 at 10:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, one of the things the cited study found was that differentiation of cells was the key factor in preventing breast cancer. This means that, since cells differentiate early on in pregnancy, late-term abortions are still a-okay (assuming we give 100% credibility to the study). The study also found that women who got pregnant as young as possible were least at risk for cancer--which means you'd also advocate teen mothers (despite their much higher risk for other life-threatening conditions, like eclampsia).

Not to mention that the American Cancer Society AND the National Cancer Institute refute such claims, despite their scientific objectivity.

There's also the notion of recall bias--women who already have breast cancer are more likely to be honest about their abortions because they have more of an incentive to offer ANY explanation for their affliction. This problem is exacerbated because the study performed was not longitudinal--women were interviewed AFTER the fact, rather than interviewing cancer-free women, and monitoring them over time. When a study was performed in this way (at Harvard in '07, involving 100,000 women), there was NO LINK between abortion and breast cancer.

However, studies have indicated that there IS a short-term link between breast cancer and carrying a child to term. Not to mention that carrying a child to term is a MUCH riskier endeavor than aborting.