Please - you're putting me off dinner!

But point to me where in that comment there's any mention of taking off one's clothes? Your the one posting about someone being naked, not me. You seem to be exhibiting little experience overall in gender roles and doubly facinated by the naked human body.

you're right ali - he also seems obsessed with me being naked in the woods

which is just a tad too creepy for me

Y A W N

Wow, very very pathetic.

I'm sorry, but your links, and the studies that are contained therein, are unconvincing for the following reasons (among other reasons):

1. All case-control studies in the medical fields are notorious for containing "recall bias," whereby a healthy person is less likely to be honest about all of their actual health-related experiences/actions than an unhealthy person is since the unhealthy person has more at stake and, thus, greater concerns than the healthy person for being treated properly. In essence, there is a great possibility that there would be an under-reporting of induced abortions for women who DON'T have breast cancer...which would skew the "results" of any case-control study trying to link induced abortions and breast cancer. So, anyone who points to case-control studies to find a link between induced abortion and breast cancer would be adopting an inherently biased method to discover any correlation between the two.

And, historic cohort studies, studies that don’t rely on any subject’s self-reported, health-related experiences/actions, are essentially free of bias recall-at least in the sense that one or more induced abortions HAVE occured-since those studies rely, instead, on data gathered from actual hospital/clinic visitations by a population of people. And, a major historic cohort study performed in Denmark in 1997 which analyzed the data gathered from 1.5 million Danish women hospital/clinic visits since 1973 found zero increased risk of breast cancer for women who had an induced-abortion by the 14th week of pregnancy…a gestational age with which the majority of induced abortions will-at least in the United States-occur by.


2. Since there doesn’t appear to be any link between miscarriages and breast cancer, why should there be any link between induced abortions and breast cancer? In short, the speculation that ONLY induced abortions suddenly “interrupt the estrogen surge” within pregnant women and NOT miscarriages is misleading at best and fraudulent at worst. In essence, the exact same “interrupted estrogen surge” would occur in the vast majority of pregnant women who either have miscarriages OR induced abortions. So, there doesn’t appear to be any basis for women, in general, to be at any greater risk of developing breast cancer caused by an “interrupted estrogen surge” due to induced abortions over and above the baseline risk of women developing breast cancer by an “interrupted estrogen surge” due to miscarriages. Hence, this proposed mechanism doesn't make any logical sense in light of objective data.

From the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute:
But yeah, I'm sure they're lying too.


Sure. Abortion is really safe...

Did you notice the word "sometimes" near the beginning of your quote? They put this word in there because about less than 10% of all miscarriages have anything to do with hormonal inbalances, such as lower than normal estrogen levels.

So, in essence, most women who have induced abortions are at just as much risk for developing breast cancer as women who miscarry at the same gestational age.

That's pretty much what I said in part two of my post...although I could have added "at the same gestational age."

(I noticed you never even tried to refute that Danish study. How come? Their methodology, I know, is much better than a case-control study's methodology.)

Hasn't that tired ABC theory been debunked?

Now, this is really insidious: this "Breast Cancer Prevention Institute" site looks like a nice, normal site with information about breast cancer, right?

Look closer.

USCCB - The Contraceptive Revolution and Its Fruits an article on the US Conference of Catholic Bishops website (under the banner "pro-life activities") by one of the founders, john bruchalski, on the EEEEEVILS of contraception.

Dr. Joel Brind is a Christian pro-lifer and a big proponent of the ABC theory: Biography of Joel Brind
Joel Brind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I couldn't find a biography of Angela Lafranchi, but her name seems to be attached to various pro-life publications and groups.

And check out Dr. William Toffler's testimony before the British House of Lords in regard to assisted suicide: PCCEF - Articles


Tell me this seemingly innocent website isn't just an anti-abortion propaganda tool.

So I have to ask, do you think people are idiots or something, and can't do a simple google search?

And I would add that if the mechanism highlighted in the bold section of the text that you cited were to be true, then there would HAVE to be a link between most miscarriages and breast cancer just as much as there (supposedly) is between induced abortions and breast cancer.

So, do you have any studies that find that (supposed) correlation?

I just wonder how they could be so certain that that proposed "sudden interrupted estrogen surge" mechanism is true when there haven't been studies confirming any link between miscarriages and breast cancer.

(If it were true, I don't think there COUDN'T be a link between miscarriages and breast cancer.)

And I wonder how they arrived at the conclusion that this could be the ONLY mechanism (induced abortion leads to sudden interrupted estrogen surge leads to breast cancer) by which there would be an increase in breast cancer in women.

There are, in fact, other scenarios that can lead to an increase in breast cancer incidence in women.

Call me a skeptic...