You always go on hearsay but never provide any proof of your grandiose claims

Win were you always the pot in your school plays???

That is part of the problem. The methodologies are all over the place. Most were conducted by identifying women with breast cancer and relying upon interviews to question regarding their past histories. A few have relied upon past histories by respondents and where possible verification of medical records.

One study was performed using rats in which rats were impregnated and them caused to abort. A control group of non impregnated rats and the rats that were impregnated and then aborted were then introduced to a carcinogen. In this study the rats that were not impregnated did not develop cancer, whereas the impregnated then aborted rats did.

Now I am the first to admit that these studies all have their faults.....However, that is why I stated more studies not politically motivated need to be performed.


dmk

Oh, I agree.

Here is an interesting take on this topic which focuses on Joel Brind, one of the main proponents of the hypothetical increased abortion-induced breast cancer risk:

The scientist who hated abortion - - science news articles online technology magazine articles The scientist who hated abortion

Humans are not rats.....STOP THE PRESSES!!!! After all these years of study after study that says this or that causes cancer in rats, now when it comes to breast cancer we cannot believe it.

One of the reasons scientists use rats is because their processes mimic our own, but as we now have heard, humans are not rats. The scare about DDT all a lie. Saccarin another.....the list can go on. Finally a scientist has said it so it must be true.

dmk

I see your sarcasm and general sense of skepticism but it is true that humans just aren't rats. While rats, primary the Brown Rat, are used as an animal model, they are still just that, models. And, while there might be SOME correlation between rats and humans in terms of biological processes and the effects of certain influences on those biological processes, scientists haven't been able to demonstrate a 100% correlation between rats (or any other organism) and humans. So, I would definitely agree with the conclusion, "but humans aren't rats." And, in other areas of study besides the effect of abortion on potential breast cancer, the study of rats as a model for humans might also be misleading since, again, there hasn't been a demonstrated 100% correlation between humans and rats.

(Besides, a relative risk of 1.3-a 30% increased chance-gathered from studies that might possibly have biases that are greater than 30% isn't, in my mind, "something to write home about" since this would be like trying to accurately gap a car's spark plugs...using a yardstick.)

I am glad that you got my sarcasm, but you missed the larger point. There is no critique on the use of rats when it is a study that is politically correct, i.e. DDT. However, when the study is politically incorrect, what happens, PEOPLE ARE NOT RATS......

Admit the real problem. People complain when someone's religious view get in the way of scientific study.......are those who allow political correctness to do the same just as bad????

dmk

Me neither. I have a lot of friends who work for Planned parenthood, and I find a lot of these statistics to be questionable at best.

So... you and Trista - based on your own personal opinions - simply decide that facts and statistics are just wrong?


That's interesting.

I don't believe they're facts - I believe they're exaggerations and distortions, published by an anti-choice political organization

(how many abortions are performed in the U.S. every year? And 1/3 of them attempt suicide? Just where are all the hospitals to care for these millions of suicide attempts? One? One and a half? That would be 500,000 suicide attempts PER YEAR. 5 MILLION over the course of 10 years. And nobody has noticed???)