There is probably no more hotly debated topic today than abortion. And a lot of people are tired of hearing about it. The bottom line tends to be that most people want to do what they want without consequence. But that is just not reality. ALL choices have consequences. But the fact that this issue has become one of political correctness has led the media to keep silent on an issue which has grave effects on women's health. And this study was not funded by a pro-life group (although it was downplayed by Planned Parenthood's "research" arm - addressed in a response here already). The following is taken from Dr. James Howenstein's website.
Dr. James A. Howenstine is a board certified specialist in internal medicine who spent 34 years caring for office and hospital patients.
ABORTION CAUSES BREAST CANCER By Dr. James Howenstine, MD. Most women in the United States are unaware that having an abortion increases the risk of developing breast cancer. The fact that abortion causes breast cancer has been nearly completely suppressed by the media because it is a politically incorrect issue. More than 30 studies have confirmed a relationship between having an abortion and the subsequent development of breast cancer. Since 1960 there has been a surge in the number of women developing breast cancer in the USA. Currently every woman in this nation has between a 10 and 12% chance of developing breast cancer. Dr. Joel Brind, Professor of Biology and Endocrinology at Baruch College of the City College of New York has been crusading to get the information that abortion is a major factor in the causation of breast cancer to the public. Not one magazine or newspaper was willing to print his findings. His research was finally reported in Lancet, a fine English medical journal. When you enter a Planned Parenthood Clinic to have an abortion do they tell you that this procedure increases your chance of breast cancer by 50%? If a woman has an abortion at anytime, her chance of developing breast cancer goes up by at least 50%. In November 1994, a National Cancer Institute (NCI) study done at Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, Wash. showed a clear link between having an abortion and the subsequent development of breast cancer. This NCI research disclosed that if the abortion was performed before age 18, the risk was increased by 150 %. If the woman was over 30 and had a family history of mother, sister, grandmother, or aunt with breast cancer the risk went up by 270%. The most ominous finding was that every woman who had an abortion before age 18 and had a family history of breast cancer developed breast cancer by the age of 45. There were only 12 women in this study who fit this category, but they all developed breast cancer. (Source: November 1994 National Cancer Institute report of a study performed at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington). A Howard University study in December 1993 confirmed these NCI findings but had a longer follow up. By the time the women who had an abortion reached the age of 50 the chance of breast cancer had increased by 370%. The story for multiple abortions is even worse. The more abortions a woman has the greater the risk of breast cancer. A study from France showed that a woman with a family history of breast cancer who had 2 or more abortions increased her risk of breast cancer 6 fold. In Lithuania it is common for women to have had 5 abortions by the time they reach 25. They are experiencing an explosive increase in breast cancer in young women. Many women believe that there is nothing wrong with having an abortion. Proverbs 14:12 states" There is a way that seems right unto man, but the end thereof is death." Abortion not only kills the child it jeopardizes the life of the mother. Why does abortion increase the chance of breast cancer? Dr. Brind believes that abortion leaves the breast cells in a permanent suspended state where they are neither dormant nor mature and that these cells are susceptible to undergo malignant change. Remember, ladies and gentlemen, all decisions have consequences. And contrary to popular opinion, pro-life people, including myself, care about BOTH lives - the babies' and the mothers'. And unlike abortion clinics, the pro-life movement is staffed largely by volunteers, and the money given to fund pregnancy centers comes mostly from donations. Every year, there are more requests for adoptions that go unfulfilled than there are abortions. Maybe there are women who do not have the support that I did when I was a single mother 16 years ago and are unable to keep their children. There are arms that would welcome them. There are people that will help. But then again, maybe there are women who simply feel that they do not want to "go through" pregnancy and childbirth, for whatever reason. They may not only be robbing their child of a life and a home, but they may be robbing themselves of a future. It's worth thinking about. Kim Tracey
December 26, 2003
NewsWithViews.com
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Since you're arguing that we should ban abortion because it can lead to cancer, I presume you want to ban cigarettes as well. And probably you want to ban tanning salons, because they lead to skin cancer. And you'd also want to tightly regulate industrial pollution, a huge contributor to asthma AND cancer.
(if you can't see the fnords they won't eat you)
You read a lot into my post. If you want to KNOW if I believe abortion should be banned, stay tuned. The point of my post was to present factual information that has been denied or ignored that is vital for women who want to make an informed decision. Is this a bad thing? Your response was, in technical logic terms, a red herring, in that you are bringing up things that had nothing to do with my statement (i.e., cigarettes, tanning salons, industrial pollution); this is a logic fallacy. But since you brought them up, cigarettes should be banned. They do cause cancer. You could argue against this only if the smoker were the only one that was affected, but the fact is that they are not; others have a right to be protected. Tanning salons MAY be only at worst something that breaks down something that is affected by a legitimate CAUSE of cancer - lack of vitamin D; there is a lot of new evidence on this. Sunscreen blocks your body's production of this important vitamin, and leads to the very thing the sunscreen is supposed to prevent. Industrial pollution obviously cannot be eliminated, and I am certainly not a strict environmentalist, but it only makes sense to be as responsible as possible, which brings me back to my original point: women have a right to responsibly presented, complete information on abortion, as they would to any drug or medical procedure. And this is not being done, because it is not "politically correct." This is wrong. And if abortion were banned, this discussion would be a moot point.
Kim Tracey
Alright. If you want women to be totally informed of all the risks, why not inform them of the risks of pregnancy such as infertility, hemorrhage, blood clots, infections and sepsis, and death?
If abortion were banned, the new topics would be how to stop women from getting back-alley, coat-hanger abortions and how to stop women from hitting themselves to induce abortion, and how to stop the sudden epidemic of rampant child abuse and poverty.
Make no mistake, if there is a risk, women should be told of it; but the studies about breast cancer and abortions have been widely discredited.
(if you can't see the fnords they won't eat you)
The thing is, women ARE informed of the risk of pregnancy and birth. I have A LOT of experience in this area, as what is known in the obstetrics field as a "grand multi-para." I have 6 children; 6 pregnancies, no twins. Your statement that infertility is a risk of pregnancy is an oxymoron. There is no risk of infertility from pregnancy - only from abortions. Yes, there is a risk of hemorrhage, but there is a greater risk of hemorrhage from abortion. Also, hemorrhage is very treatable; I know, because I had that one - once out of 6 times, and only because my baby was posterior and my uterus was over-stimulated by harder than normal contractions. Anyway, I'm still here. And so is that baby. Infection is also a greater risk with abortions; infection in post-partum mothers in this country is rare, thanks to advances in sanitation. And by the way, sepsis IS infection, so we've already addressed that. Blood clots are more of a risk post-partum than during pregnancy or delivery, but they are also a risk if a woman is on the pill, particularly if she smokes and/or is over 35. Death? The latest statistic on that one is that, in this country, a woman (and this is including high-risk women with serious health conditions and women who give birth unassisted in fields or bathrooms - just so we're clear) has about a 1 in 10,000 chance of dying as a result of childbirth. FAR, FAR, FAR less than dying of breast cancer-linked abortion.
I have news for you. No one would be twisting women's arms into "back-alley, coat hanger" abortions; if women do such horid things to themselves and their babies, that would be no one's fault but their own (and any who would assist them). I can guarantee you this: there are more babies that are losing THEIR lives now than there were women who died before abortion was legal. And there are more women dying now of breast cancer than there ever were of "back alley" abortions.
Okay, since when does childbirth automatically lead to "rampant" child abuse and poverty? If someone does not want a child or cannot afford to take care of one, first of all, they should not be having sex. Second, there is the adoption option. There are more unfulfilled requests for the adoption of an infant in this country than there are abortions. There would be a home for every one of those babies.
The reason that the studies of the A-B-C link have been "widely discredited" is because of political pressure or bias, not science. The Guttmacher Institute is a favorite for quotes about studies, abortion stats, and sexually related data. But no one bothers to mention that this is the "research arm" of Planned Parenthood. THEY don't even identify it as such. That just screams bias.
The bottom line is that the best way to prevent problems in pregnancy is to maintain, to the greatest extent possible, a healthy lifestyle, and to have competent medical care, particularly in high-risk situations. There are women who die during or following childbirth. But there are also women who die following an abortion, and not JUST from breast cancer. The clear deliniating line is this: Aside from an infinitesimally small few, ALL babies die from abortion. It's a tragedy when a newborn dies; but it's just a big a tragedy when an unborn dies. And it is also tragic when a woman dies of something that could have been prevented by good, COMPLETE information.
Kim Tracey
There is no risk of infertility from pregnancy - only from abortions. Yes, there is a risk of hemorrhage, but there is a greater risk of hemorrhage from abortion.
There is a risk for infertility in pregnancy, especially with c-section deliveries. Hemorrhage can happen in abortion or childbirth; it also happens in invasive surgery, heart repairs, and so on, and yet I don't see you railing on about the dangers of those things.
sepsis IS infection
Wrong. Sepsis is systemic infection. Infection is localized.
No one would be twisting women's arms into "back-alley, coat hanger" abortions
Probably true. But should we create a situation where women are going to be putting themselves at such risk? You can ban abortion all you want, but it's not going to make it go away; it's just going to make it go out of sight. What have we banned that actually went away? Alcohol? Drugs? It doesn't work, it won't work, and the only effect will be increased mortality among women who want abortions. Not that you would care...
since when does childbirth automatically lead to "rampant" child abuse and poverty?
It doesn't, but most people who get abortions are poor, unwed teenage mothers, whose babies are going to be born into neglect and poverty. Statistically speaking, the life of an abortion is going to be miserable.
If someone does not want a child or cannot afford to take care of one, first of all, they should not be having sex.
What planet are you from? It's nice that you think that people shouldn't have sex unless they want babies. But are you willing to pass laws telling people that sex is for procreation only? Have YOU never had non-procreational sex? Are you saying that the poor should not have sex? Why would you even say that? Do you just dislike the poor, or is it simple ignorance?
Second, there is the adoption option. There are more unfulfilled requests for the adoption of an infant in this country than there are abortions. There would be a home for every one of those babies.
Then why are there so many children lost in foster care and group homes? If there's homes for every one of them, why are they not in those homes?
And let's just assume that abortion does lead to cancer. So does smoking, alcohol use, breathing in a big city, eating too many processed foods, and eating too much. Are you willing to pass laws banning all of those things too, because they cause cancer?
Aside from an infinitesimally small few, ALL babies die from abortion.
I used to work in a NICU. I can tell you, right now, that that statement is pure BS.
It's a tragedy when a newborn dies; but it's just a big a tragedy when an unborn dies.
Why? Why isn't it more tragic when, say, a genocide-victim child dies in Sudan, or a child dies of malnutrition in India? Your concern with the unborn supercedes your concern for the living, and the fact that you regard an unborn clump of cells as more important than a living human being sickens me.
(if you can't see the fnords they won't eat you)
I never knew that. I had never heard it. If abortion is such a wellknown topic, maybe this needs to be attatched to it also.
Thank you for your comment. This is very true, and it does need to be shared; that was the reason for my post. You will read on this thread how the studies mentioned in the article I shared have been "widely discredited," etc., but you have to know where this is coming from. The Guttmacher Institute is the "research arm" of Planned Parenthood, and reports a lot of this misinformation. There is a great lack of information on this topic. What you have to remember is that abortion is a BUSINESS. I believe I still have an article written by a woman who was in it an got OUT that testifies to this. Pro-life centers are run by volunteers and supported by donations (and "pro-choice" people scream over them receiving any government funds, while lobying to have the government pay for abortion) and people who care about EVERY life - moms and babies. The old saying is true...follow the money.
Kim Tracey
the numerous studies that have shown that abortion does not cause breast cancer, including a study of over 200,000 women published in the International Journal of Cancer in October 2006 (far more recent than any of the "studies" you mention). You also forgot to mention that both the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society have concluded that abortion does not cause breast cancer - after conducting systematic reviews by the world's leading researchers and scientists.
The reason that most of the media and medical journals have not published the "more than 30 studies" that you describe is because they do not stand up to rigorous scientific review - not because of political correctness.
You know, I did some checking on this, and could not find the study you quoted. The California Breast Cancer Research Program lists 14 articles published in the International Journal of Cancer, but none of those listed this study you mention. And where is your proof that more than 30 studies do not stand up to rigorous scientific review? I would think that would be possible with 1 or 2, maybe 3 or 4, but THIRTY?
And you say that the one you mentioned was more recent, but there were only two dates for the studies given in the article I posted; how can you state that the one you reference (which you ONLY referenced; you did not provide text or link) is more recent than the other more than 28? You're also automatically assuming that later is better. You provide no evidence of this. You also do not say who funded the study (that can be telling).
And by the way, the first study the doctor who wrote the article I quoted WAS published...in Lancet, "a fine English medical journal." Guess you missed that. What was telling was that the MEDIA did not report it. THAT is bias; it wasn't a "politically correct" conclusion.
Kim Tracey
It's interesting that in the study it states that abortion "leaves the breast cells in a permanent suspended state where they are neither dormant nor mature and that these cells are susceptible to undergo malignant change." However, if a woman loses a baby during her pregnancy by miscarriage wouldn't that also have the same affect on her? It seems to me that if this were the actual reason for the development of breast cancer, then women who suffered from miscarriages would experience this as well.
The study also does not say (the part thats shown anyway) how far along these women were before they had abortions. Obviously if the women were into their second trimester this could be an explanation because the body has already undergone a considerable amount of change in the chest area. However, if the abortion is performed during the first trimester, which is recommended by gynecologists, then the body should be able to adapt to the sudden change of the fetal state and change back to the way it was before.
Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
-Eleanor Roosevelt-