I took those studies to an accountant friend who told me he is ninety percent certain that there is an Abortion Breast Cancer link. It was so glaringly obvious that the National Cancer Institute never funded another study. Instead they quote flawed foreign studies that skew the figures even though they got ridiculed for doing so. They are not satisfied with just killing defenseless humans they hate women too.
Al of Alnot | Homepage | 05.31.06 - 2:29 am | #

Gosh, Al, I never thought of myself as a woman-hater before.

Did you notice PP`s web site also contains this?

"While researchers do not know what causes breast cancer, reproductive factors have been associated with risk for the disease since the 17th century, when breast cancer was noted to be more prevalent among nuns. It is known that having a full-term pregnancy early in a woman's childbearing years is protective against breast cancer, and some studies have also indicated that breastfeeding, especially in women who are young when they give birth, may reduce a woman's risk of developing the disease."

So it would seem to be a no-brainer conclusion that if a full-term pregnancy lowers a woman`s cancer risk, terminating a pregnancy removes her chance of reducing her risk. However, that`s different from actually CAUSING cancer -- it is causality that PP, as well the American Cancer Soceity, dispute.

Also, this is on PP`s site:

"While Asian women show a lower incidence of breast cancer than women in western countries, women who move from areas of low to high incidence, such as Japanese women moving to Hawaii, show a slow but definite increase in breast cancer over successive generations "

Japan had a huge spike in abortions after WWII, peaking in 1952. There was no corresponding spike in breast cancer rates, which are creeping up there but are still significantly lower than in the West.
L. | Homepage | 05.31.06 - 3:00 am | #

"Studies have shown that abortion is not associated with breast cancer. Undaunted by the absence of compelling evidence, anti-choice extremists insist on making the connection anyway. Once more they are using misinformation as a weapon in their campaign against safe, legal abortion."

What are they trying to do? Sell abortions? Any authentically pro-woman group should want this information circulated, even if there was the slightest chance it is true.
Bryan | Homepage | 05.31.06 - 3:54 am | #

Merck is probably working on a drug that simulates pregnancy to protect women's breasts without the inconvenience of an actual baby.
Tony | Homepage | 05.31.06 - 9:35 am | #

Japan has one of the lowest breast cancer rates in the world (although it has been creeping up) probably because of their diet (high in soy isoflavins). When Japanese women move to the west and adopt a western diet, their breast cancer rates climb. Why is this a surprise?
Tom | Homepage | 05.31.06 - 9:39 am | #

And the peak for abortions in Japan was in 1955 (about 1,150,000 abortions).
Tom | Homepage | 05.31.06 - 9:41 am | #

Tony: you say that like it would be a bad thing.
Another Jeff | 05.31.06 - 11:31 am | #

"In BRCA2 mutation carriers, first childbirth at later ages was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer compared with first childbirth before age 20 years ... whereas in BRCA1 mutation carriers, first childbirth at age 30 years or later was associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer compared with first childbirth before age 20 years.

"Neither history of interrupted pregnancies (induced abortions or miscarriage) nor history of breast-feeding was statistically significantly associated with the risk of breast cancer.

"CONCLUSIONS: BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers older than 40 years show a similar reduction in breast cancer risk with increasing parity as non-carriers."

The above is from the abstract - I don't read it the way you do,
Dawn - it's not talking about the relative risks to women who are pregnant after 40, but the relative risks to women over 40 according to their previous pregnancies.

Since carriers of the BRCA1 gene are, according to this study, at higher risk if they give birth under 20 than after 30, and since interrupted pregnancies in this study were not associated with increased risk of cancer, I can see physicians recommending that women with the BRCA1 gene terminate pregnancies that occur before 30 - if they give a lot of weight to one study.

Not really what I'd call one for our side.
Lisa | 05.31.06 - 11:55 am | #

Tony -- you`re right, Japan`s peak abortion year was 1955 -- my typo.

And I don`t know what point you`re trying to make when you ask, "why is this a surprise," that Japanese women have a low breast cancer rate despite the country`s high abortion rate. I brought up this point only to show that there`s not a direct, universal causal link between abortion and breast cancer, or Japan would have had a breast cancer epidemic.

For anyone interested in Japan, here are abortion stats:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/...n/ab- japan.html

And here`s a paper on contraception:

http://iussp2005.princeton.edu/ d...missionId=51736

Japan has one of the lowest birthrates in the developed world, even though condoms are its primary form of birth control. (I would argue that abstinence is its primary form of birth control.)

Asian women are generally less predisposed to breast cancer, and yes, diet is thought to play a role, though genetics likely do, too.

I personally think a drug to simulate pregnancy to protect women's breasts without the inconvenience of an actual baby would be a godsend.
L. | Homepage | 05.31.06 - 12:34 pm | #

Why do we need to protect women's breasts if there are no children to feed on them?
Andy | 05.31.06 - 6:47 pm | #

Andy -- nuns.
L. | Homepage | 05.31.06 - 7:24 pm | #

L, such a drug regime would be great - probably pretty similar hormonally to pregnancy though - and mimicking lactation without lactation would be tricky.

Andy - hope you're joking. I lost one aunt to breast cancer at 38 - she had four children, and another at 70 - she'd never been able to have children, not her fault. And my mother has survived two bouts of it.
Lisa | 05.31.06 - 7:31 pm | #

Yes, Andy, please clarify. Based on your previous comments, that sounds beneath you.
Dawn Eden | 05.31.06 - 8:15 pm | #

L., the point is that not only is a full-term pregnancy protective, an interrupted pregnancy is WORSE (as far as breast cancer risk is concerned) than no pregnancy at all. Nuns had more breast cancer because they had fewer full-term pregnancies than average. Women with interrupted pregnancies have more breast cancer even than those who were never pregnant. The reason is that early in pregnancy, there is a growth in breast tissue, while the tissue is still in the unspecialized form that is prone to cancer. LATER in pregnancy, after the breast tissue has grown, it matures and specializes to produce milk, and those specialized cells related to lactation are not prone to cancer as the unspecialized tissue is (because all the growth/development switches have been permanently turned off).
Joseph | 05.31.06 - 10:38 pm | #

I was very unclear in my point, yet clearly insensitive in my approach. I apologize.

What I was getting at was L's statement that drugs simulating a full pregnancy without actual pregnancy is typical of anti-child thinking. I was pointing out that the nourishing aspect of breasts is useless without actual children to feed. I was not trying to imply that dying of cancer is better than anything.

I thought being short and snarky would get my point across. I was wrong.
Andy | 05.31.06 - 10:59 pm | #

Being overweight also increases the risk of breast cancer, a most recent study found.

I think breast feeding also precludes a woman from getting pregnant the year the previous baby was born.

Of course abortion would increase the likelihood of breast cancer not to mention mental distress and/or disorders. It's unnatural.
getalifeagain | Homepage | 06.01.06 - 4:54 am | #

"Women with interrupted pregnancies have more breast cancer even than those who were never pregnant."

Joseph: care to supply a reference to an unambiguous MedLine-cited abstract for your thesis here?

Andy: you seem to be offering an apology for the tone of your question ("Why do we need to protect women's breasts if there are no children to feed on them?") not its content.

It is not "typical of anti-child thinking" to hope medical advances might one day be able to mimic and extend the advantages understood to be conferred by pregnancy. I found your stated regret for your original astounding comment hollow since you immediately attempted to amplify it. Do I need to point out that men get breast cancer too?
jody tresidder | 06.01.06 - 7:47 am | #

Actually, I was not apologizing for the tone of my question at all, but for its content. In my attempt to be clever, I said something that I had no intention of saying (I was insensitive to the deadly plight of those with breast cancer). I am not going back on my thinking, but only on my horribly misstated original post.

I think my real point stands, however. Let's say that using gas pumps decreases the chance of them blowing up in an accident. Would anyone suggest that we find some procedure of salvaging these pumps without actually pumping gas? It simply begs the question of why gas pumps exist if we are finding every excuse possible not to use them.

A far from perfect analogy, but I hope it clarifies a bit. The fact that "men get breast cancer too" is a red herring since this discussion is about how full-term pregnancy can lower breast cancer risk. Unless, of couse, we can find ways of making men FEEL pregnant without actually being so.

I'm sure many will imply that I believe women are nothing more than breasts and am equating them simply to gas pumps, but it's the best I can do on the fly. What I originally said was bad enough without putting words in my mouth.
Andy | 06.01.06 - 8:26 am | #

Andy, I think the point was the few men who get breast cancer might benefit from pregnancy-simulating drugs. I will stay away from your "gas pump" metaphor, and just say that not all lactating women choose to breastfeed. Whenever I see a La Leche league member wearing a "Breasts Are For Breastfeeding" t--shirt, I think, "Ugh -- not mine!" (Actually, I did breastfeed, didn`t like it, and understand why some women who can do it choose not to do it at all.)


"I think breast feeding also precludes a woman from getting pregnant the year the previous baby was born."

Nope -- some, but not all women by far. Some women start ovulating again right away.
L. | Homepage | 06.01.06 - 9:43 am | #

Joseph, I think I know the study you`re citing -- is it the one by Joel Brind? The problem with those studies was that women`s bodies are different, and women`s breast tissue matures at very dfferent rates in pregnancies -- again, genetics probably plays the biggest role in an individual woman`s cancer risk.

I have been following the interrupted pregnancy/breast cancer link very closely, because I experienced an interrupted pregnancy many years ago, and one doctor did tell me that it might raise my breast cancer risk. But another doctor told me that being pregnant at all would likely LOWER my cancer risk.

So I`m all in favor of further studies on the subject.
L. | Homepage | 06.01.06 - 9:57 am | #

"Andy, I think the point was the few men who get breast cancer might benefit from pregnancy-simulating drugs."

Thank you, L. Exactly.
jody tresidder | 06.01.06 - 10:10 am | #

I can't see how we would, to be honest, Jody. Giving men drugs tailored for women's chemical profile would probably be worse than what one was trying to cure in the first place, and especially trying to simulate an event men can't experience in nature. It would be like protecting a car's passengers by fitting them with life jackets, because it certainly helps when one is sailing.
Nightfly | Homepage | 06.01.06 - 11:02 am | #

"Giving men drugs tailored for women's chemical profile would probably be worse than what one was trying to cure in the first place..."

Nightfly,
Neither of us - I'm at least 50% right in saying - is a pharmaceutical chemist.

But drugs designed for condition A are sometimes found to be the ticket for condition B, aren't they?

You seem to have launched yourself into a rigidly negative position regarding all collateral drug applications for no very good reason?
jody tresidder | 06.01.06 - 11:20 am | #

You seem to have launched yourself into a rigidly negative position regarding all collateral drug applications for no very good reason?

Seem, Jody, but not so. First, because it's certainly not rigid. I realize that drugs don't always work according to common sense - stimulants serving to calm down ADD kids, for example. But my reason is perfectly sound and based on simple observation. Most of the time, taking drugs not intended for oneself isn't helpful, and can cause actual harm.

In general, I'm not sure why one would want to give a man the hormonal profile of a pregnant woman - though I hear plenty of jokes about strapping a bowling ball to the guy for several months to see how HE likes it. =) How would a male body react to the sudden introduction of hormones for a condition no man ever has? And for breast cancer treatment it seems especially odd, since one would have to it do BEFORE the breast cancer shows up to confer whatever benefit pregnancy can provide. (Remember, it's preventative, not curative.) Given the relative scarcity of the condition in men it seems like one is running the risk of making more men sick than would get sick otherwise, in ways we can't be certain of.
Nightfly | Homepage | 06.01.06 - 12:27 pm | #

Nightfly,
We are getting into the comic realm of duelling bar room "experts" here!

You say, yes indeed, some drugs work in a way that doesn't appear to be based on common sense.

Fair enough.

Then ALL your lay objections to speculative research are based on the complaint that you can't see how such and such an approach would make common sense!


So why make your non-expert "common sense" your benchmark for feasibility?

You describe as "odd" the idea of treatments that begin "BEFORE the cancer shows up". Why "odd"?

Treating diseases BEFORE they show up is called immunization. Not odd at all. The very latest immunization programs have been very much in the news too.


What on earth do you think the hunt for predisposing genes is about?

I haven't the foggiest about the molecular biology of hormone treatment.

I also don't understand how deep sea stuff might halt my future grandchild's leukemia, say. But someone else might: "One of the most promising ocean resources appears to be deep-sea sediments. Research in Fenical's laboratory, for example, has produced Salinispora, a new bacteria found in ocean mud that has produced a promising cancer inhibitor."

I would take a scientist's openly enquiring mind over a layperson's splutters about common sense any day.
jody tresidder | 06.01.06 - 2:07 pm | #

"Let's say that using gas pumps decreases the chance of them blowing up in an accident. Would anyone suggest that we find some procedure of salvaging these pumps without actually pumping gas? It simply begs the question of why gas pumps exist if we are finding every excuse possible not to use them."

Actually, it's more like how I stop my car from overheating in the summer by turning on the heat, but it would be nice to do that without blasting myself with hot air. Because my car has functions other than providing heat. It goes places, for example. Yes, I'm going as far as to say that women have functions other than nurturing babies.
the15th | 06.01.06 - 6:54 pm | #

You say, yes indeed, some drugs work in a way that doesn't appear to be based on common sense. Fair enough. Then ALL your lay objections to speculative research are based on the complaint that you can't see how such and such an approach would make common sense!

No. Not all speculative research. Just this particular speculative research. Remember, we're talking about "the few men who get breast cancer and might benefit from pregnancy-simulating drugs."

In this case, IF the benefit of simulated pregnancy is proven AND IF they develop a method, who is the likelier to benefit - women, who are naturally able to be pregnant and suffer breast cancer at exponentially higher rates, or men, whose bodies are not designed for the one and run nearly zero chance of the other?

You describe as "odd" the idea of treatments that begin "BEFORE the cancer shows up". Why "odd"?

Again, not any treatments. THIS treatment. Why affect all men with a regimen that simulates something that NEVER happens so that very few of them MAY run reduced risk for a really rare condition?

Treating diseases BEFORE they show up is called immunization. Not odd at all.

No - but it would be odd if the immunization proved to cause worse damage to more people than the illness one sought to prevent.

I would take a scientist's openly enquiring mind over a layperson's splutters about common sense any day.

And I'm wondering how you get to "aha" me both ways, first by claiming that I'm too rigid, and then claiming that I contradict myself. =)

Ritalin helps control ADD symptoms, but most other drugs work in a pretty straightforward manner: folic acid is a necessary nutrient even if you don't get pregnant (and oh the howling THAT suggestion caused), blood thinners help prevent excessive clots, acid-blockers help soothe ulcers, etc. Far fewer are of the order of "give all men female hormone therapy to prevent a rare disease."

You say science has discovered this bacterial by-product with some promising results. Very good. I truly hope it pans out. But every few dozen similar stories produce perhaps one usable drug, and again, usually said drug works by doing what it's designed to do. The scientists say, look, after thirty years of trying to do X to accomplish Y, we found something and it works.
Nightfly | Homepage | 06.01.06 - 7:14 pm | #

Excuse me -- I am a data wonk, and am pathologically unable to refrain from Googling anything I find remotely interesting. So I just have to throw some random facts out into this fascinating but subjective conversation:

The American Cancer Society estimates that about 1,450 new cases of invasive breast cancer are diagnosed in men each year and approximately 470 men die from breast cancer annually. Male breast cancers account for approximately 1% of all breast cancer cases.

Approximately 20% of men with breast cancer have close female relatives who have (or have had) breast cancer.

When functioning normally, the breast cancer gene 2 (BRCA2) helps repair damage to DNA (a process that also prevents tumor development). However, some men and women have genetic mutations of the BRCA2 gene, which can lead to an increased risk of breast cancer. BRCA1 (breast cancer gene 1) mutations also increase the risk for breast cancer in women. Men who carry mutations of the BRCA1 gene may pass the gene along to their daughters, who would be at an increased risk of developing breast cancer.

(And last but not least, this nugget:)

Estrogen may feed some types of cancerous breast tumors, and therefore, men who have been treated with estrogen may be at an increased risk for breast cancer. However, according to the American Cancer Society, the risk of breast cancer due to estrogen treatment appears to be small. The benefit of slowing the growth of prostate cancer with estrogen, for example, often outweighs the risk of developing breast cancer. Also, men who take high doses of estrogen as part of a gender-changing procedure may be at a higher risk for breast cancer.
-----


I have to say, if I were a man with a genetic mutation and a family history of breast cancer, I might be willing to try an experiemental preventive drug.

We now resume our ongoing discussion, already in progress.
L. | Homepage | 06.01.06 - 7:45 pm | #

Neat research, L, thanks. I still think that 1450 out of 120,000,000 or so is really long odds, and even granted a 100% preventative, I don't know if every man would take it. They would already have to be at high risk, like you indicate in your reply. (Heck, estrogen replacement therapy is still controversial for women worried over bone loss.)

If half refused, and one in twenty thousand users suffered liver damage, for example, that would be about twice the number of sick men. Some may just take the 2-in-3 odds of beating the very rare cancer they have longer odds of even developing.

We agree on one thing - this is a fun conversation and I'm enjoying it greatly.
Nightfly | Homepage | 06.01.06 - 8:36 pm | #

"And I'm wondering how you get to "aha" me both ways, first by claiming that I'm too rigid, and then claiming that I contradict myself. =)"

Nightfly, it's hardly my fault if you are curiously capable of doing BOTH, is it?

You ask: "Why affect all men with a regimen that simulates something that NEVER happens so that very few of them MAY run reduced risk for a really rare condition?".

What's with the "all men" suddenly? Where did "all men" come from? Not to mention your other sarcastic "absolutes" in these crazy, all-embracing "gee whizz, let's see what works if we inject men with stuff from women" scenarios of yours?

There are such things as targeted clinical trials based on extensive R & D, last time I looked.

The problem with your statement that "most other drugs work in a pretty straightforward manner" is that it's blindingly simplistic.

You go from revealing a vague grasp of the sort of stuff pushed on TV commercials like ulcer medicine, kiddie Ritalin and once-a-day aspirin regimens - to making grand statements about the probable inefficacy of hormone treatments and cancer.

Sure cancer drug R & D is littered with false promises and blind alleys. But if drug treatments were all so straightforward, Nixon's original war on cancer would be long over, surely?

I just don't get your non-expert "common sense" confidence about what is likely to work in such a hugely complicated area.
jody tresidder | 06.01.06 - 9:23 pm | #

The problem with your statement that "most other drugs work in a pretty straightforward manner" is that it's blindingly simplistic.

It also seems to be true. That's why I cited common examples as evidence.

I just don't get your non-expert "common sense" confidence about what is likely to work in such a hugely complicated area.

Fair enough. But if I have to be confident in something, I prefer the likely chance to the unlikely. It's a useful safeguard against mistrusting simple and obvious things solely on those grounds.

What's with the "all men" suddenly? Where did "all men" come from?

"All men" came from a simple observation, J. - we were talking about a possible drug regimen for men that may work to reduce risk of a rare cancer. Since it only works to reduce risk it's hardly helpful to start after the diagnosis, therefore we are talking about casting a wide net, much as we immunize every schoolchild against measles and polio. If you think it's crazy to say "all," fine. Say "many." How many? You'd still run into the same objection - men don't get pregnant and likely (that word again) never will, so how does simulating the hormonal profile of this event help them? If this is a "crazy, gee-whiz scenario," it's not my fault - I didn't come up with the idea.

If someone with a lot more scientific oomph can overcome that objection and make the scenario feasible, good on them. That's why I'm having fun with the debate and not taking myself nearly as seriously as you seem to be taking me. My confidence has been misplaced before and no doubt will be again. It's common to Mets fans. =)

Until then I think I can be excused for thinking that the idea of simulating pregnancy in a man is far-fetched - again, like giving lifejackets to folks in cars, based on their usefulness in boats.
Nightfly | Homepage | 06.02.06 - 3:41 am | #

Nightfly,
If scientists had to take note of your personal "objections" that certain areas of research were unlikely to yield obviously useful results (based on that good ol' copper bottomed common sense of yours), they'd be better off studying plumbing.

Okay, here's another way of putting it in honor of your lovely blogging name.

Do you assume that the 17,000 peer-reviewed papers published by scientists about fruit flies in the last 5 years are to simply increase our understanding about those dumb itty-bitty bugs you and I find hovering in annoying clouds over mushy apples?

Doesn't that invaluable common sense of yours whisper - wrongly as it happens - "gee, flies are pretty different from people! People aren't flies and never will be! Just like men don't get pregnant and never will! Don't tell me otherwise, you silly scientists! I wasn't born yesterday, no ma'am!".

Well guess what, Nightfly! Your little buggy cousins, the fruit flies, are a very handy, tractable (i.e. they breed like rabbits, but don't unduly upset the folks at PETA) model for studying the mechanisms of genetics and development in other animals too. Studying and understanding these mechanisms helps us find the "answers Nature is trying to hide from us" to paraphrase a female, Nobel laureate chemist.

You take your understanding of the workings in one model and apply it to another. The more we understand about the mechanisms of a disease like cancer in either men or women, the more we can understand about the hormones we think might confer protection, the quicker we can work to cure/prevent it in both.

BTW. I never actually said I wanted to simulate a pregnancy in a man. My hope is that drugs to confer/mimic the protection that pregnancy appears to offer against breast cancer might be developed.

Two other points (one of them less serious!). Immunization is no longer considered an approach solely for transmissable diseases, like measles, polio etc as you mentioned. You've probably read about strides in cancer prevention immunization programs and the possibility of doing the same to prevent the formation of brain plaques associated with Alzheimer's. This is an area that would have seemed in defiance of common sense until recently.

And - the haha/aha! point. You wrote:"Until then I think I can be excused for thinking that the idea of simulating pregnancy in a man is far-fetched - again, like giving lifejackets to folks in cars, based on their usefulness in boats."

And THAT, Nightfly ("lifejackets for folks in cars"), strikes me highly ironically as a pretty good lateral-thinking description of the innovative, inflatable emergency life-saving devices known as airbags!

Advantage, Jody - I think. (Sorry, NightFruitFly that last bit is extremely childish...)
jody tresidder | 06.02.06 - 12:56 pm | #

It's all good. I'm having fun and I'm not taking it personally. In that spirit I hope you don't mind two points about our dueling analogies:

1. An airbag doesn't work because it's a "lifejacket in a car," but because it's a cushion. The key is softness, not buoyancy. As a result, 2. It's innovative, but not because it defies common sense. On the contrary, it's prefectly logical to soften a sudden impact by having something mooshy in between one and the dashboard/windshield.

In other words, you can't simply substitute one for the other - that's why I used it to illustrate my position in the first place!

Likewise, immunizations developed for non-infectious illnesses. Some seem very promising, but none seem purely out of left field - they seem much more to me like scientists looking at the success of stuff like measles and polio inoculations and saying, "How do we try this proven, successful approach elsewhere?" In fact, much like what you mentioned about my vast airborne minions helping us understand similar processes in higher animals. =)

You can joke about my copper bottom all you like, but all of your examples bear out the value of common sense. The scientific method is all about observation, hypothesis, and experiment. Approaches that work usually do so for understandable reasons. When it comes to advancing the knowledge of humanity, common sense is quite well ahead.

The more we understand about the mechanisms of a disease like cancer in either men or women, the more we can understand about the hormones we think might confer protection, the quicker we can work to cure/prevent it in both.

And there, we agree again. I can see how understanding the mechanism of pregnancy helps women live healthier, and how understanding hormones in general helps everyone. The only tripping point is the throwaway sentence that started it all - L's remark: "Andy, I think the point was the few men who get breast cancer might benefit from pregnancy-simulating drugs" - a remark that you agreed with at the time, and sent me wondering aloud how these men could benefit. How could they tell they got the effects right? What harm may result in the introduction of hormones that men either don't have or only produce in miniscule quantities? Do we hurt more men than we may help?

As stupid as I may sound for voicing those worries, it's nothing more than an actual medical researcher would have to ask if pursuing this line of inquiry - and moreso because pregnancy may confer reduced risk, but oral contraceptives seem to do the opposite. Satisfactory answers may exist, and if so I have no doubt they'll make sense and I'll have to change my mind. No shame in that.

Now, I see you've clarified your previous agreement by saying, "I never actually said I wanted to simulate a pregnancy in a man." In other words, you hope to "confer/mimic the protection that pregnancy appears to offer against breast cancer." (my emphasis) At this point I think our disagreement finally resolves; or at least, gets as close as we're likely to.

In any case, it's been a pleasure to have a good conversation and not a flame war. If ever you're in Jersey the first drink is my treat.
Nightfly | Homepage | 06.02.06 - 4:22 pm | #

"As stupid as I may sound for voicing those worries, it's nothing more than an actual medical researcher would have to ask if pursuing this line of inquiry."

Nightfly,
Not stupid at all. You are absolutely correct. The curbs on any sort of clinical trials along these lines would be mind-boggling. In fact, I thought YOU were treating ME as a kind of demented Anna Nicole Smith nurse figure running around with an injection full of lady hormones ready to zap the nearest male (or something).

Fun had this end too. So thanks - and also for not taking umbrage when I became a bit shrill and pompous. (I was getting a google headache trying to keep up with you...).

The second fruit fly cocktail is on me.
jody tresidder | 06.02.06 - 5:13 pm | #

Abortion does *not* cause breast cancer. The very same study quoted here says that interrupted pregnancies, whether miscarriage or induced abortion, had no effect on the rate of breast cancer. They said that full-term pregnancies may lower the risk, but not having full-term pregnancies does not increase it. You are distorting the facts.

Telling someone that they are risking their life by having an abortion is dangerous and wrong.
Shelley | 06.03.06 - 4:31 pm | #

Telling someone that they are risking their life by having an abortion is dangerous and wrong.

Certain kinds of abortion may be "safer" for the mother if one looks only at immediate survival of pregnancy, but post-abortion suicide and illness makes the mortality rate of childbirth much lower overall. See this comprehensive study from Finland, which was published in the American Journal of Obstetrics, and this distillation of the study (from a pro-life site -- an abortion-supporting group isn't exactly going to play it up).
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 06.03.06 - 10:05 pm | #