Abortion More Dangerous Than Childbirth - Page 12

caffeinebuzzchick · 02-22-2007, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baloney_detector

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.

There haven't been, just like there's no human studies (other than meta analyses) linking abortion and breast cancer.

From:
Summary Report: Early Reproductive Events Workshop - National Cancer Institute

Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk. (1)
Recognized spontaneous abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk. (1)

and... you're a skeptic

baloney_detector · 02-22-2007, 12:10 AM

An interesting take on Joel Brind:

https://www.discover.com/issues/feb-...res/feathated/

caffeinebuzzchick · 02-22-2007, 12:13 AM

this is quite off-topic, but *i'd* like to see string theory explained in 2 minutes!!!

baloney_detector · 02-22-2007, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caffeinebuzzchick

this is quite off-topic, but *i'd* like to see string theory explained in 2 minutes!!!

Oh, not tonite...Dear.

I'm up WAY past my bedtime...good evening Buzzzzzzzzzz

Jefferson · 02-22-2007, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baloney_detector

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.)

I notice that you keep spinning out of control, trying to explain why all these studies - linking abortion to breast cancer - just CANNOT BE RIGHT! THEY CAN'T BE!

Kill the Kid, Maim the Mom.

Jefferson · 02-22-2007, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caffeinebuzzchick

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?

Same question to you: How come you're working so hard to disprove study after study after study that links abortion to breast cancer?

Brainwashed?

Kill the Kid, Maim the Mom.

Jefferson · 02-22-2007, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baloney_detector

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...

I won't call you a skeptic. I'll call you willfully ignorant.

Why not try to "spin away" all the OTHER irrefutable facts about the dangers of your so-called "safe and legal" abortions?

Kill the Kid, Maim the Mom.

baloney_detector · 02-22-2007, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

I notice that you keep spinning out of control, trying to explain why all these studies - linking abortion to breast cancer - just CANNOT BE RIGHT! THEY CAN'T BE!

The problem with "all of these studies", at least a good number of them, is that they rely heavily on people telling the truth.

Simply put, a case-control study is inherently biased.

And furthermore, because of this fact, some conclusion that women are 30% more at risk for developing breast cancer for WHATEVER reason is bound to be a smaller change from the norm than the error in measurement of the type of study used.

In short, this 30% greater at risk concluson is a useless conclusion because its the equivalent of saying that women are 30% at greater risk for developing breast cancer after an induced abortion...+/- 50% based on the measurement error of the study.

Find a study with less inherent measurement error to find a correlation between the two to demonstrate a link between induced abortion and breast cancer...and then you might have something realistic to talk about.

Jefferson · 02-22-2007, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baloney_detector

The problem with "all of these studies", at least a good number of them, is that they rely heavily on people telling the truth.

Simply put, a case-control study is inherently biased.

And furthermore, because of this fact, some conclusion that women are 30% more at risk for developing breast cancer for WHATEVER reason is bound to be a smaller change from the norm than the error in measurement of the type of study used.

In short, this 30% greater at risk concluson is a useless conclusion because its the equivalent of saying that women are 30% at greater risk for developing breast cancer after an induced abortion...+/- 50% based on the measurement error of the study.

Find a study with less inherent measurement error to find a correlation between the two to demonstrate a link between induced abortion and breast cancer...and then you might have something realistic to talk about.

So you're going to just flat-out deny all the findings concerning the risks of abortion?

Wow.

Wow!

But I'll bet $100 that you DON'T want your daughter to have an abortion.

AlicornsPrayer · 02-22-2007, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

So you're going to just flat-out deny all the findings concerning the risks of abortion?

Wow.

Wow!

But I'll bet $100 that you DON'T want your daughter to have an abortion.

What's funny with you Jefferson, is you are posting OLD information that that same society now has publically retracted as inaccurate information? Yes, they do still provide all their studies on this particular 'study', in fact over 340 old studies are available to view in their archives. All done in the 1990's.

Yet, you completely ignore their current findings, which refute those old studies? That were done very recently?

Is there no end to your deceptions? Of your denial and misleading of information? I guess not. Cause since you don't like the new findings, since they don't support your 'argument', you'll insist they don't exsist are are 'abortionists propaganda'. Which is funny, because both examples came from the same institute. ROTFLMAOL!!! Just that yours simply is OLD news and no longer applicable.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode