Abortion Is to Breast Cancer What Smoking is to Lung Cancer

A fairly recent study conducted in China points out an extraordinary link between abortion and breast cancer. Apparently, having an abortion increases a woman’s chances of breast cancer by nearly 50%, and the percentage grows higher with every abortion.

In a country like ours where everyone from military personnel to football players wear pink in a purported act of solidarity with the fight against breast cancer, it should be surprising that this link has not been made more public. If we were really interested in defeating breast cancer, it would make sense to educate women about the very significant link between abortions and breast cancer. After all, we inform smokers on every pack of cigarettes that smoking contributes to heart disease and lung cancer. The more a person smokes, the more they are at risk. The same is true of abortions and breast cancer.

The link is largely undeniable at this point, but it has been denied by everyone for years. The National Cancer Institute and even the Susan G. Komen Foundation deny any correlation. That doesn’t mean much, however. For years, equally “respectable” and “unbiased” organizations of “experts” denied the link between smoking and lung cancer. Doctors apparently even recommended smoking for health reasons. If you don’t think there aren’t very powerful organizations (cough cough Planned Parenthood cough) as equally invested in the perpetuation of the abortion myth, you need to set down your cold cup of Kool-Aid and smell the napalm.

You won’t hear much about this (other than hollow denials and “fact” flashing), in spite of the fact that multiple studies from different countries over the past twenty years have corroborated a correlation between abortion and breast cancer. And the reasons for the connection are fairly well-known, though not heavily publicized. In an interview with World Net Daily, Dr. Jane Orient, a spokeswoman for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, explained:

Orient said breast cancer is generally hormone sensitive and is often treated with anti-estrogens. Pregnancy is the most important cause of a high estrogen level.


She noted estrogen increases by 2,000 percent by the end of the first trimester, increasing cancer vulnerability. However, by the end of pregnancy, 85 percent of breast-cancer tissue has become cancer-resistant because of hormones made by the fetal-placenta presence.


That means a completed pregnancy protects against breast cancer. The protection is lost when a pregnancy is aborted, making a woman even more vulnerable to breast cancer.

Women who carried their babies to term were actually less at risk for breast cancer than women who had never been pregnant. It is clear then that “informed consent” should include a discussion of the risks of abortion. But most facilities and organizations that provide abortions are not required to mention any risks—apparently there aren’t any. Abortion is touted as a largely risk-free means of birth control. Proponents of “women’s rights” want to suppress the connection between abortion and breast cancer because they have an ideological vested interest in telling women that abortions are completely and perfectly safe. They are not. The detrimental emotional and physical side effects of abortion are enormous.

It’s time the real wagers of the war on women stop speaking out of both sides of their mouths. If they truly care about women’s health, they need to be preaching against abortions as vehemently as they currently endorse them.

84 responses

          • I have known couples who tried to adopt a baby. Some worked for years and gave up before ever being able to get one. Some of these went “across the big water” before being able to adopt a baby. Many babies from foreign countries have been adopted and are living in homes in America. Millions of American babies, are being murdered and it is difficult to find a baby that someone had rather give up, to someone who would love it dearly, than to kill it.

            I do not think I am allowed to post what is done to the bodies of these babies, but you know when one is murdered there is a body that must be disposed of.

            GOD is still above and knows exactly what is going on and why it is going on. HE WILL TAKE CARE OF IT BUT NOT UNTIL THE TIME FOR THAT IS RIGHT.

          • In not afraid to educate. The dissected bodies of the fetus’ are sucked out of the womb via a vacuum instrument which first cuts the baby up before the vacuum is turned on. The parts then go into a bucket of sorts that, once it is full, is labeled Haz Mat and shipped of with he rest of the hazmat materials to be buried somewhere,n the desert. I had an abortion 35 years ago. Had I been educated on the whole procedure and informed of the stage of life my baby was in, I NEVER would have gone through with it. I live with my decision every day of my life. But I, unlike so many who use it as a form of birth control, was not so lucky. I went on to have six miscarriages and going into retirement , we remain childless .

        • You’ll love this then.. (your gonna hurt from laughing)
          Had to re-post it here

      • God actually mandates abortion when the fetus is a product of adultery (Numbers 5). A jealous and suspicious husband should bring his wife to the local priest, who forces the woman to drink a poisonous “water of bitterness” to bring on God’s “curse”. If she experiences “bitter pain,” if her “belly swells” and her “thigh rots,” she fails the test and becomes an outcast. Virtually all Biblical scholars agree that this voodoo ritual and its cloaked euphemisms refer to an induced (not to mention unsafe) abortion. The word “thigh” in the Old Testament usually means genitals, but in this case, it refers to the uterus and its contents. One alternate Bible translation reads, “She will have barrenness and a miscarrying womb

        • This is why I don’t read the bible. Too many people take it too literally and forget that it took thousands of years to write by a bunch of human beings

        • Under that covenant your “reassignment’ surgery would have been involuntary you pitiful little scumbag homo TROLL.
          mrBlob AFTER his ELECTIVE REASSIGNMENT surgery below…………..

          • Under that covenant you should have been aborted because your father was actually married to your grandmother. be thankful neither of them could read.

  1. The problem here is that the meta-analysis only claims there to be a correlation,but not necessarily a causation. There are better studies accessible on PubMed that focus on causation anyways.

          • I believe it is a mistake to correspond with any Satan incarnated person. it causes them to continue to drive themselves into Satan’s hold. Satan already as a death hold on Boobie. The evil that he comes forth out of the mouth cannot possibly ,come from the mouth, or from the print, of a human being, is my opinion and that we should leave him alone to stew in his own wicked juice. Even the devils know who JESUS is, James 2:19 ans of course Satan knows because he an angel in heaven but was so evil that he was thrown out. This can only do harm to those who listen to him, or read his well thought out evil words, best ignore him and eventually he will get tired of listen to his or reading his one evil if he cannot get a rise out o anyone.he is the number one troll on these sites.

            Jesus told HIS disciples to leave, shaking the very dust off of their feet when nobody would listen to HIS WORDS.

            Evil is not good, and good is not evil. Boobie is evil!

          • Why on earth was “Mad Bob” not aborted??? What evil the world would have escaped. This “maggot” is a curse from Satan. We must abide in GOD and HIS WORD until HE sends HIS SON to collect HIS people, the dead and afterwards those who arr still living and then HE will take care of such evil.
            This information can be found in 1 Thessalonians 3:13-18.

          • Here’s a novel idea. If you want the government to enact more laws restricting birth control, sex education, abortion, same-sex marriage, and drug use, among other things, it makes you pro-big government, it doesn’t make you a “don’t tread on me” small government libertarian. It also makes you a colossal hypocrite, plain and simple.

          • Allow me to ask you this. If you were a cab driver and you picked up a pregnant woman as a fare and she was already in labor ( which she hid from you when she got in your cab) one or two more pushes and the baby would be born. Would you
            A). Race through traffic risking lives even though you knew you would not make it to the hospital
            B) pull over and assist with the delivery but she confides in you that she never wanted the baby and begs you to strangle it as soon as the neck is delivered
            C) pull over and tell her to get out of your cab.
            D) deliver the baby then call 911 for an ambulance and to report the woman’s request

          • We know what the lonely little scumbag homo TROLL, Blob would do…..jab a hole in the base of the childs skull like his god & party endorses (o’murderer and demoncraps)

          • Poor pitiful lonely little creature you are blobbie. still trying to dance around your endorsement of term abortion murder.

            Fact: boob is an atheist, liberal, demoncrap and worships obomba

            Fact: Demoncrap party, liberals, atheist and their god…obomba all support NEAR TERM ABORTION (and all abortion)!

            Near term abortion means survival as a viable LIVE BIRTH PERSON outside the womb. what all the monsters above are guilty of is holding the child’s head inside the birth canal, punching a hole in the base of the skull and sucking the small humans brains out to drain run down a sink.

            THIS IS WHAT MR BOOB STANDS FOR, might as well practice it himself and deserves no quarter nor consideration

            Mr bloobs favorite saying is: If she want’s it, it’s a baby. If she doesn’t want it, it’s an embryo.

            Thus mr bloob is an athiestic demon posessed baby murderer.

            so…..your pro abortion? Go here….. http://www.180movie.com/

  2. There is absolutely NO confusion with the people in this country in general & woman in particular as to which party is waging a war on woman!

    • mrBlobbie says…If she want’s it, it’s a baby. If she doesn’t want it, it’s a fetus.
      Where are all these buzz words of: limited my access, crucial health services, vilified and punished me, because I am a defenseless single baby, Etc., FOR THE SMALL DEFENSLESS HUMAN who didn’t have a chance to be called names and be told to shut up?
      What about the war on LIFE? Yes…the small person LOST!

    • Mr. Bob!!!

      I thought I lost you… =( I was soooooo sad. Where did you go? We were having such a fun time discussing your religious views and you just went away…??? I was beginning to think that you didn’t like me. It almost seemed your disappearance was on purpose, I mean after admitting that you and all other atheists believe in atheism by faith. And now I find you here again harassing other people of faith!!! Imagine my Excitement and Joy to finally find you!!! I would love to continue our little discussion of your religion if you are up to it??? Where did we leave off??? Oh yeah, I had just pointed out that in order for someone to say that there is no God, they would have to be God themselves which would be logically impossible… then POOF you were gone!!! Write back soon!!!

      • You may have me confused. Atheism is NOT a faith. Both the existence and non-existence of god are impossible to prove, so the rational atheist says simply: there is insufficient evidence
        to support belief in a god, therefore I don’t believe in god. This is not an absolute position, just a logical conclusion. One’s convictions should be proportional to one’s evidence. I can tell you why I don’t believe in God or an afterlife, and can even tell you what evidence would persuade me that I was mistaken. Can you do the same? A belief which leaves no place for doubt is not a belief; it is a superstition

        • Mr. Bob,

          Thanks for the reply. I am happy to see that we can agree on some things. I agree with your statement about one’s convictions being proportional to one’s evidence with a slight reservation. The facts (evidences) by themselves don’t mean anything. That is why for example in a murder trial the prosecution must have evidence, opportunity, and MOTIVE. The motive is what ties the evidence together leading to a conclusion. In the same way, our underlying presuppositions control how we view the facts. You and I could look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions based on our presuppositions. If you presuppose that God does not exist, then there is ZERO evidence that I could show you that He does. I also agree with you that it is impossible to probe that God does not exist. That is why I say that you believe it by faith – which you freely admit. By the way, your definition of an Atheist is actually the definition for an Agnostic. On the other hand, I know without a shadow of doubt that it is very easy to prove that God does exist. I would also argue with you that God has given all of us overwhelming evidence that He exists although at this point I know that you can’t accept that. I’ll leave you for now with my proof for God’s existence: The proof that God exists is that without Him you can’t prove anything…

          • A presupposition can only control how you view facts to a certain degree. There’s a point where some views simply won’t fit regardless of how we may want to view them or our past experiences. If a presupposition stops one from believing in God after seeing supposed evidence then it is not strong evidence to begin with and those accepting it as such must be privy to a personal experience that confirms it, in which case it shouldn’t be expected for anyone else to accept it as evidence, or jumping to conclusions.

            Of course, this depends on what the supposed evidence is actually putting forth as reality. It might not necessarily be pointing directly to the existence of God, but rather something that may imply existence as a possible answer. An example being the Earth and existence of life on it. Some would say this is evidence of the fine-tuning of a creator. Other arguments can be made about it as well though. The only thing that can be said for sure is that the existence of life on Earth is one that had a seemingly small chance of happening.

            Not believing because all knowledge is not obtainable is more in line with reasoning than faith. Saying,”I don’t know, therefore God,” would be faith based. If there is nothing necessarily depending on the existence of God then it can be said that the existence of God is unnecessary. Unnecessarily saying God exists is just making reality more complex than it needs to be. Going by Occam’s Razor, the simpler approach should be to say that God doesn’t exist, at least until shown as being necessary.

            He’s an agnostic atheist to be precise. One needn’t be described as just one or the other although some people would say that someone calling themself an atheist would be a gnostic atheist.

            Starting from a point of no knowledge, one can come to the conclusion that they think and therefore exist. You don’t need God to show that.

          • Udo,

            Thanks for the well thought out response… The point that I am trying to make is that the facts by themselves don’t mean anything. Theists and Atheists can look at the same evidence and come to completely different conclusions. As a Theist, I may look at a beautiful flower and see the handiwork of an infinite God. An Atheist can look at the same flower and conclude that millions of years of natural selection it to this point. We could go back and forth arguing over DNA, time, chance, statistics, etc. and still not change our position. It is like those yellow glasses night vision that you put on at night to filter out the glare. The yellow lenses filter out the blue light reducing the glare. The same is true of our presuppositions. The presuppositions filter the facts assigning importance and relevance to each fact.

            What is necessary to make progress either way is to pull back the curtains on the presuppositions and see which worldview actually makes sense. I would humbly submit that it is the Christian worldview that allows us to make any sense of the world we live in. Without it you can’t prove anything and therefore you can’t know anything for sure. This is why I can say that the proof for God’s existence is that without Him, you can’t prove anything.

            Thanks again for adding to the conversation. I appreciate it…

          • Would you elaborate a bit more on why you say that God is needed to prove anything? Also, to what end do we need to know things?

          • Udo,

            Those are both good questions and I would be happy to explain… If someone has as one of their presuppositions a belief that God does not exist, then they are left with very few explanations of how we all got here. Ultimately if God did not create the universe and all it contains and then hold it all together according to His will, then you are pretty much left with it all happened by randomness and chance over a great deal of time. The problem with this is that it totally destroys one’s epistemology or in layman’s terms “How you know what you know.” One of the ways that we know things is by experimentation and testing. If everything at some level is random then we no longer have uniformity of nature and our ability to experiment, test, and learn is out the window.

            For example, lets say you conduct an experiment in chemistry lab next Tuesday mixing chemicals according to a certain formula. You follow the formula precisely and you end up with a certain result. Can you predict on Tuesday that if you do that same experiment precisely the same way on Friday that you will end up with the same result? Without the uniformity of nature, you have no idea how that experiment will turn out on Friday.

            This illustrates the problem that we have if we say that the universe is random and came into existence by chance. The result is that we can’t ever really say that we know anything for sure.

            To answer your second question, we need to know things just to live our ordinary lives. Imagine how hard it would be to just get by not knowing things.

            But you are probably thinking that we do know things! This is correct, we do know things and we do so by assuming the uniformity of nature. We do so by assuming that the Christian worldview it true. Even my good friend Mr. Bob lives his life this way assuming the truth of the Christian worldview that God created everything and holds it in place – yet all the while denying God’s existence.

            Again I will say that the proof for God’s existence is that without Him you can’t prove anything.

            I hope this answered your questions. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to explain.

          • I think the definition and/or application of random is the problem here. Few things, if any, are truly random. We apply that to things that we have little to no grasp of concerning all the factors that could be implicated.

            With the experiment, if things were exactly the same, then yes. The problem is that an ideal replication would be hard to do to begin with let alone know all the factors that it implies. Now, say it is replicated as much as possible within our understanding. You might predict the same thing will happen, but that doesn’t mean that the prediction won’t be wrong.

            Other things outside of the experiment might go differently too, say gravity reverses. Now, this might seem random or absurd and that gravity has changed or is not uniform, but it’s only that our idea of gravity has changed and our perceived uniformity. Gravity may very well have always been capable of reversing. If we consider that then our idea of gravity was simply wrong, but there is still uniformity in how gravity functions because it could always function in that manner.

            Knowledge isn’t gained through assuming. That’s not to say our assumptions are wrong, but that they aren’t confirmed. I think we do know things, just far fewer things than we realize.

          • We DO KNOW things and that is the point. We know lots of things because we recognize that the universe is uniform and therefore we can experiment, test, and learn. It is not the Christian worldview that is saying that the universe is random. It is the Atheist/Humanist that is making that claim not realizing how much it undermines everything for them.

            On top of that, it is not just the uniformity of nature that the Atheist can’t account for, but the Atheist can’t account for the laws of logic either. How do you get universal absolute laws from a chance universe? Again, this undermines the Atheist’s ability to know things. Without logic, you can’t reason. Without the ability to reason you can’t learn things. The Atheist must once again borrow from the Christian worldview to reason in order to make sense of anything. For the Atheist, the very act of reasoning or argumentation proves his belief in God. The Atheist affirms the Christian worldview all the while denying it.

            So once again we see that it is impossible to be an Atheist or Agnostic for that matter. God has given so much evidence for His existence that all of mankind is without excuse. The Apostle Paul put it this way… For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as
            God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and
            exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore
            God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. (Romans 3:18-25)

            All of mankind is without excuse and knows that God exists because God has made sure that His existence is evident to ALL of us. No matter how hard someone may try to deny it, they prove everyday that they believe in God just by living their everyday lives. This is why I can confidently say that we all (including Mr. Bob) know that God exists because of the impossibility of the contrary.

            Thanks for writing back…

          • Observing a pattern in an experiment still doesn’t equate to knowledge. No worldview I know of uses the same definition of random that you’re using. That definition of random is conceptual.

            The laws of logic are conceptual also. Without any mind to conceptualize such things they wouldn’t exist. It’s created and used by us to interpret and try to make sense of things. Something might be absolute in concept, but not in reality.

            I’m thinking you might be using circling reasoning. You say the universe exists as it does today because of uniformity and that the uniformity is so because things can’t inherently be random so God exists because the universe exists as it does today, etc.

            Something to consider about knowledge and concept. Back when people used geocentric models, it was thought that it was the reality of how things were. Now, the system can still work as well as the heliocentric model we use today to predict the movement of planets, but it isn’t a reality of how things are. We perceived that it worked a certain way, and even when our experiments showed it as being true, it wasn’t. We therefore couldn’t say we knew how the solar system worked. It was an assumption, guess, or concept, but not knowledge. One can even say that the heliocentric model is the same as we can largely judge things based on just our sensory perceptions and those perceptions could be entirely false without us knowing.

          • No… I am not reasoning in a circle. And I am not using a different definition of the word random. What I mean is that for the Atheist, there is no One controlling the universe. According to the Atheist, everything that has come into existence happened by random chance (having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective). This also means that nothing is controlling the universe now either which means the the universe and everything in it is unpredictable.

            I am not saying that the universe exists today because of uniformity. I am saying that the worldview of the Atheist can’t account for the of the uniformity of nature given the presuppositions of his worldview. That is not reasoning in a circle. That is pointing out the obvious. I am taking the worldview of the Atheist to its logical conclusion which ends in absurdity.

            My worldview begins with the existence of God as the creator and sustainer of the universe. I freely admit that I believe this by faith. The Atheist begins his worldview by believing that there is no God and that everything just happened somehow. Most Atheists I know would loathe to admit that they believe what they believe by faith, but it is absolutely true. Strip everything else away and at the core whether Theist or Atheist both are acting, believing, and living by faith. Now, given those two worldviews, which one allows us to make sense of our world?

            Now for the laws of logic… they are more than conceptual. They are universal absolute laws of reason. They are not conventional – meaning they are the same in China as America or any other place on the planet. If they are not universal and absolute then you and I are wasting our time…

            By the way, what is your position on all of this? Where do you stand on the question of the existence of God? What about absolutes and things like laws? What is your position on those things? In your worldview, is it possible to have knowledge or know anything for sure? I have freely expressed my beliefs and now it it your turn…

            Thanks for writing…

            Thanks for the reply, I hope this helps to clear up some of your questions.

  3. Hmm. In high school, we received the celibacy speeches from local gynecologists. We heard some of the horrors of pregnancy, childbirth, and unwanted [single] motherhood. The best thing, we were always told, was to wait until we girls found a guy who was willing and able to be every bit as involved a parent as WE some day were willing to be, and to give our [future] children the absolute best we could.

    HOWEVER… one of the things they showed us girls was how hormones caused all throughout pregnancy most definitely disrupted hormones throughout our lives, raising not just breast cancer likelihood, but the likelihood of cancers in all of our reproductive organs. They backed this up every year with the charts and graphs of hormone disruption through the nine months (and after).

    This is still being taught to kids, and is still what gynecologists AND obstetricians are upholding as true. In fact, with China’s HIDEOUSLY high rates of government-mandated abortions, the Chinese populace should be among the highest victims of breast cancer, when in fact they are among the LOWEST. So this sounds like one more demented, Chinese lead-based mental deficiency putting this claptrap out.

  4. I am fervently prolife. I have consulted 2 physicians about the link between breast cancer and abortions. One was my gyn. She said there was no connection. I then consulted a friend of mine who is a surgeon, and regularly participates in prolife causes. He said the same thing. Keep in mind that WND has credibility problems. And lastly, Mr. Bob is an idiot.

    • I’ve wondered too about some of the stories that made it to WND’s pages. Someone needs to hire a better fact-checker. As for this story out of China, we don’t believe anything else they ever have to say, so I hope we wouldn’t believe this latest claim either.

      I also wish we would never have another woman get an abortion, but to support this wish with false claims is not the way to go. Another claim that makes my skin crawl is when some uneducated person says that so many women die from getting an abortion, when in fact a hundred TIMES as many die from the complications of pregnancy or even childbirth.

      And agreed, “Mr. Bob” is an idiot. As is anyone who comes to a site and posts things having nothing to do with the story at hand.

      • We don’t need false claims. The truth is firmly in our camp. ALL the medical science supports the fact that embryos and fetuses are fully human. DNA anyone?

        • See though, no one here (nor in the story above) was trying to claim that embryos/fetuses aren’t fully human as provable by DNA. Of COURSE their DNA is that of humans, because that’s all they’re made of!

          Why come here and post something that had nothing whatsoever to do with the story or issue?

  5. Just a reminder that mrBlob is a sick, sad, lonely little scumbag homo TROLL who has a serious addiction to this blog also because he hates Christians and anyone with traditional values. He has profiled to demonstrate some severe shame issues probably stemming from his severe childhood sexual abuse which may have contributed to his insatiable militant homoerotic tendencies and clearly anal/scrotum obsessions and preferences.
    Libtards, demoncrap party, communist, Nazi’s and obamoa all endorse near term abortion along with planned (parent) murderhood. mrBlobbie represents all of these in fact actually is stupid enough to believe everything obomba says and in fact worships him as god. These people are all murderers!
    What near term means is a viable PERSON who would survive outside of the womb with or without any supports. This small humans head is held in the birth canal, hole punched into the base of their skull and their brains sucked out and skull collapses while their brains run down a sink drain. This is MURDER!
    Thus mrBlobby is a MURDERER along with his god “I and planned parenthood will not yield” obamao.

  6. I bet at some point it will be known that STD’S cause more than Cervical Cancer. If there are still any real doctors and scientists left instead of common core communists of useful idiots only pushing more MORE ABORTIONS FOR ALL SEX SCENES!

    • There are plenty of scientists & their knowledge grows at the fastest rate in the history of the world. The problem is idiots like you don’t believe in them OR science!

      • Yes, I know. All of the Global Warming, oh, Global Change Scientists who lie about all truth and data, the islamic communist puppet regime Way Of The World Control. FYI, “are idiots”, idiot!

        • Of course they are! I mean what could 97% of the brightest most highly educated scientists on the planet possibly know that an uneducated dipshit like you doesn’t?

          • Hey, You IS the uneducated dipshit. Hey commie core propagandist, no one will ever believe your commie core made-up statistics. Let alone your doublespeak.

          • “you is”??? Go back & spend a few more years in the 3rd grade & learn the English language before you speak of education.

          • You stupid @$$ of an idiot. Go back and read YOUR post. I see your picture and are you holding up your “love finger”?

          • The pity is that you are probably considered “bright” by your commie propagandist handlers.

          • By teabagger standards the lonely little scumbag homo TROLL, mrBlob is a DIP$HIT and blithering moron. Anyone who could believe everything obamao says has to be insanely STUPID!!!

          • Why would you bring the San Fran same-sexers into the debate? Did you check with Nancy to see if it was OK?

          • The object of blobbies WORSHIP! In fact oBlaBla is Blobs MAIN religion because he believes everything the O’Bozo says……

          • 97% . . . . that is just nonsense Bob . . . when did Science become about Consensus?
            Science is about FACTS . . . and after 20 years . . . the Alarmists have produced None !

      • Blobbie no longer is concerned about STD’s because he and this weeks boyfriend are infected with the “RAINBOW”!!

  7. “In February 2003, the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) held a workshop of more than 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. The experts reviewed human and animal studies that looked at the link between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. Some of their findings were:

    Breast cancer risk is increased for a short time after a full-term pregnancy (that is, a pregnancy that results in the birth of a living child).

    Induced abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk.

    Spontaneous abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk.

    The level of scientific evidence for these findings was considered to be “well established” (the highest level).”


    This article speaks for itself. There is no link between abortions and breast cancer.

    • It should be pointed out to anyone who may not know, but “spontaneous abortion” is just medical-speak for a miscarriage. I know many do know this, but some do not.

      • And it breaks the hearts of most of the women who have gone through it, sometimes more than once or twice. To see it described as a spontaneous abortion rips your guts out.

      • Pitiful lonely little scumbag homo TROLL, mrBlob. Is so grotesque that he rarely ventures out of his little TROLL cave except for his frequent trist by the dumpster behind his favorite gay bar or boutique.

  8. This information about the connection abortion and breast cancer has been available for a long time but the liberals attacked it as being propaganda to discourage abortion. But now that China says it, it must be true.

  9. Apparently there is also a strong correlation between using birth control pills (for a very long time) and breast cancer (info I read years ago).

    • Pitiful lonely little scumbag homo TROLL, mrBlob. Is so grotesque that he rarely ventures out of his little TROLL cave except for his frequent trist by the dumpster behind his favorite gay bar or boutique. In some sick and twisted sort of way he is seeking some other interface here in a conservative newsgroup with those that have values his sad little 2 dimensional life lacks.

  10. From American Cancer Association
    What do the experts say?

    In February 2009, the US National Cancer Institute
    (NCI) held a workshop of more than 100 of the world’s leading experts
    who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. The experts reviewed human
    and animal studies that looked at the link between pregnancy and breast
    cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions.
    Some of their findings were:

    Breast cancer risk is increased for a short time after a full-term pregnancy (that is, a pregnancy that results in the birth of a living child).

    Induced abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk.

    Spontaneous abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk.

    The level of scientific evidence for these findings was considered to be “well established” (the highest level).

    The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
    (ACOG) Committee on Gynecologic Practice also reviewed the available
    evidence in 2003 and again in 2009. ACOG published its most recent
    findings in June 2009. At that time, the Committee said, “Early studies
    of the relationship between prior induced abortion and breast cancer
    risk were methodologically flawed. More rigorous recent studies
    demonstrate no causal relationship between induced abortion and a
    subsequent increase in breast cancer risk.”

    In 2004, the Collaborative Group on Hormonal
    Factors in Breast Cancer, based out of Oxford University in England,
    put together the results from 53 separate studies done in 16 different
    countries. These studies included about 83,000 women with breast cancer.
    After combining and reviewing the results from these studies, the
    researchers concluded that “the totality of worldwide epidemiological
    evidence indicates that pregnancies ending as either spontaneous or
    induced abortions do not have adverse effects on women’s subsequent risk
    of developing breast cancer.” These experts did not find that abortions
    (either induced or spontaneous) cause a higher breast cancer risk.

  11. I believe a group of Swedish doctors proved that point many,many years ago, abortion causes breast cancer. They even wrote a book about their findings. The abortion lobby with the help of the politicians,as usual, forced them to shelf the book and their findings. Time to bring the book back, gentlemen…

Leave a Reply