After her abortion, Andrea contracted an infection. Her system was unable to fight the infection, and she died on January 20, 1971, leaving behind six children.
For more abortion deaths, visit the Cemetery of Choice:
To email this post to a friend, use the icon below.
Abortions prevent cancer!
ReplyDeleteHere (link below) is a study which reports:
"There was a significant reduction in risk of uterine corpus cancer in women who had ever had an induced abortion, and a significant decreasing trend in risk with increasing number of induced abortions."
Cancer Causes Control. 2006 Dec;17(10):1275-80.
AICH-TEE-TEE-PEA://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17111259&ordinalpos=8&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Link too long to post. OK, here, I'm breaking it up. You'll have to remove the carriage-returns.
ReplyDeleteAICH-TEE-TEE-PEA://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?
Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17111259&ordinalpos=8&itool=
EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Trying ONE mo' time!
ReplyDeleteAICH-TEE-TEE-PEA://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?
Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=
17111259&ordinalpos=8&itool=
EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.
Pubmed_ResultsPanel.
Pubmed_RVDocSum
Yeah, and abortion increases the risk of breast cancer.
ReplyDeleteKathy:
ReplyDeleteHee hee! That Turkish study you pointed to also found that taking oral contraceptives REDUCES the risk of breast-cancer.
The moral of the story is, you can't go by any one study. You have to read them all and evaluate them and get teh big picture. Which is why we have organizations like AMA, ACOG, NCI, WHO, and the Surgeons General to do this for us. ALL OF WHOM, incidentally, say no link.
Hee hee! That Turkish study you pointed to also found that taking oral contraceptives REDUCES the risk of breast-cancer.
ReplyDeleteThe moral of the story is, you can't go by any one study...
Which is (hee hee) what you did with your previous links. Just pointing out the fallacy for you. Thanks for proving my point.
Besides, I grow increasingly skeptical that the results given as conclusions are accurate, given that in just this past month two different studies were released with results far different from what the actual study numbers showed. Namely, the latest WHO study on C-sections in Asia found that C/s were more dangerous than vaginal birth; and while I'd like to believe that, there were 0 maternal deaths and 0 hysterectomies in pre-labor elective (i.e., with no indication) C/s, although the absolute numbers were small. While there were more ICU admissions and more transfusions, as well as maternal deaths & hysterectomies in *all* C/s combined, elective didn't seem so bad. But the conclusion reached was that C/s should not be done electively. And I don't understand why not, based on those numbers.
ReplyDeleteThe second one was the study on home birth from Australia which has been trumpeting headlines about there being a 7x risk of neonatal death or 27x risk of asphyxia or whatever the numbers are, for planned homebirth over hospital birth. But that study (as was the other one) was poorly designed so as not to give much usable information, if any. The risk of perinatal death was the same; there were more neonatal but fewer intrapartum deaths in the hospital group, so it all evened out; *and* they did not properly identify the groups (with some of the "planned home-birth group" moms actually risking out and planning a hospital birth), combined risk groups, etc. So, the studies are only as good as the data and researchers behind them.
Do you honestly think I didn't read in the study that oral contraceptives was associated with a reduction of breast cancer? Sheesh. Do you say that it increases it?
Your link was merely the abstract; I'd like to read the entire study, but am not going to pay for the privilege. However, I wonder if it was properly done, with proper controls and analysis. For example, that particular type of cancer usually affects older women, and it's possible that the women in the study who had abortions were younger and less likely to get that cancer anyway -- if that wasn't controlled for, then the results are invalid. There may be other, similar faults with it, but without being able to read it, I don't know.
Based on the abstracts alone, of those two studies I mentioned above, you'd never know the faults of the studies. Just as you question the bias of researchers who find that abortion and breast cancer are causally linked, so I question the bias of those who find that it is not. Unless the studies are good studies with proper conclusions, they cannot be trusted.
Kathy, you are right. So what you have to do is leave it to the professionals, the full-timers, to look at all the studies and compare them and note the flaws in one and the limitations in another and put it all together for a big picture.
ReplyDeleteThat's why it's better to ignore the individual studies (unless you are trained to read and understand them) and go with what the professional agencies say. You talk bias, but these agencies--AMA, ACOG, WHO, NCI, Surgeons General--have MANDATES to be as objective as they can. If they don't at least TRY to overcome their biases, then they're committing a CRIME. The mandate for attempts at objectivity comes with the federal money.
In contrast, right-to-lifist groups like the Coalition on Breast Cancer and Abortion have the opposite: with their funding comes a mandate NOT to be objective, but to attempt to CONVINCE the reader of a link which simply is not there.
So you're right again, one must look for bias. And it's easy to see where bias is to be found--in the lobbying organizations masquerading as scientists. NOT with the real scientists.
Mandates? Try to overcome their biases? When they fail, and produce garbage data, how can you prove that they didn't "try"? That's all they need to do, is "try."
ReplyDeleteACOG & WHO are both very liberal, pro-abortion organizations; and ACOG has a monetary interest in seeing abortion remain legal; perhaps AMA does too. I'll also bring up numerous studies undertaken by a Dr. Hannah -- the Term Breech Trial which led to the recommendation that 100% of breech births be by C-section, and another study on uterine rupture, which single-handedly squashed VBAC, and perhaps more -- which have been overturned as being faulty. I say again, the conclusions are only as valid as the data.
It may be that abortions do not cause an increased risk of breast cancer; but I suspect it may be something like soy or oral contraceptives -- lower the risk of one disease or one type of cancer, only to raise the risk of another. Either way, it's still doesn't justify killing a person, just to lower your risk of getting a disease perhaps sometime in the future.
Oh, and mandate? bias? How 'bout the climate? They've got a mandate to give unbiased and accurate information too; but it's looking increasingly like they're even worse biased than you or I are. Outright lying is never a good way to advance one's cause, because usually one will be found out sooner or later.
No, it is NOT looking like the climate-folks are biased! You have clearly not READ the stolen emails. All they show is scientists doing what scientists do, and a bunch of know-nothings misinterpreting their squabbling.
ReplyDeleteWell, I blogged about this. Here:
AICH-TEE-TEE-PEA://operationcounterstrike.blogspot.com/2009/11/three-things-you-dont-really-need-to.html
Once you read the post I linked to, you can intelligently comment on it. Your comment shows that you did not, but are assuming I was talking about the hacked emails. I wasn't.
ReplyDeleteAnd this story doesn't bolster my confidence in the climate data and scientists behind the IPCC any. :-/
ReplyDeleteKathy, I was gonna read the link you posted above, but when I opened it I saw that it's on the "American Thinker" web site. That's enough!
ReplyDelete"American Thinker" is a right-wing propaganda-for-hire site.
You wouldn't try to get info about evolution from WORLD NET DAILY, and you wouldn't try to get accurate info on politics from Fox News, and by the same token you should not look to "American Thinker" for reliable info about climate change.
If you want me to read and comment on a link, good-faith investigatory sources only, please.
What about the TimesOnline (UK) article?
ReplyDeleteTime, my precious, it must give ussss time!
ReplyDeleteOK, Kathy. No, this Times (UK) article doesn't bother me much, for two reasons:
ReplyDelete1. It's an error about a detail, important but not central. Glaciers are only one aspect of a manifest problem; in fact warming itself is only one aspect, there's also the question of CO2 getting into the waters and acidifying them according to the reaction:
CO2 + H2O becomes bicarbonate- anion + H+
Bicarbonate anion is HCO3-minus same as in alkaselzer and baking soda; more H+ means more acidic water (by definition). Acidic water dissolves shells off microshellfish; it also prevents ocean microplants from taking in the iron they need to convert energy into food. That's the first link, the link on which the whole marine food-chain hangs!)
AND 2. The fact that the glacier problem has come to light and is being corrected or at least addressed shows that scientific oversight is working as it should work. Every institution has errors and corruption; what gives science the edge over other hierarchies is the correction-mechanisms. For that reason, when you see correction working, that's a reason to feel BETTER about the institution, not worse.
I love how right-to-lifers gleefully post stories about abortion clinics having bad conditions and getting shut down by regulators. In fact these stories are good for PRO-CHOICE--they show exactly how and why abortions in USA are kept as safe as they are.
The institutions you need to worry about are the ones that DON'T self-correct. You know, the ones that cover it up when their officers do things like molest the followers.
Science is unusual in the generosity with which it rewards its members for exposing errors made by others.
ReplyDeleteThe way it works is: grant proposals get evaluated by experts within the specialities of the proposals. The specialties tend to be ingrown, gossip-driven communities. If you correct someone on something important you get a moment of fame which means the granting committees will have heard of you and will feel bias in your favor. So managing to dig out someone else's error translates directly into improved grant-getting power for you.
There's the Christian bumper-sticker that says "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven." The scientists counterpart would be: "Scientists aren't perfect, just corrected."
Everyone has to retract stuff. One of my favorite chemists just had to retract a multi-million dollar hi-tech discovery. (Peter G. Schultz, a method for making proteins with sugars attached exactly where you want them). It was in Science magazine, the biggest and most prestigious of all scientific journals. He's still gonna get the Nobel Prize some time in the next fifteen years.
ReplyDeleteOne man's idle speculation, not backed up by anything akin to evidence makes it into an official journal/study/article -- whatever you want to call it -- that is responsible for calling for a huge change to life as we know it, and you turn it into a good thing. Nice spin job! Gotta give you full kudos for that.
ReplyDeleteKathy, I'm just giving you the facts. Errors and corruption occur everywhere; one must rely on institutions which have self-correction built in. Therefore, when we see self-correction working, that INCREASES our confidence.
ReplyDeleteKathy, this stuff is regular material on my blog. If you are interested in how science affects your life, you should be reading me regularly. I try very hard to make the scientific explanations accessible to non-scientists.
ReplyDeleteI'd have much more confidence if idle speculation hadn't been published as firm truth at all.
ReplyDeleteHere's something of Schultz' which I blogged about that I think you will like, Kathy. A CHEAPER way to deprogram specialized cells and induce stem-cell-like pluripotentcy, WITHOUT inserting possibly-harmful genes.
ReplyDeleteAICH-TEE-TEE-PEA://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2690053/
Yes, Kathy, it would be nice if the errors never occurred in the first place. Unfortunately, they do. See: "Mortality, definition of".
ReplyDeleteRemember the old song "Had not the apple taken been, the apple taken been...."
ReplyDeleteOC, what job do you currently have?
ReplyDeleteSegaMon, I have blow jobs, occasionally.
ReplyDeleteDo you get paid for those blow jobs? Is getting/giving blow jobs your primary source of income?
ReplyDelete