Abortion does NOT lead to Breast Cancer

[theicidal maniac]

Man there has been a lot of bullshit trying to steer women away from abortion. Christian "wisdom" handed to patients as though it were medical science. AJK keeps talking about how the #1 preventable cause of breast cancer is selective abortion. He won't provide his sources, so I went and did some investigating, having read before in "The Best American Science and Nature Writing" that this claim is a lie. I assume that AJK was checking on anti-choice websites, so I went to the source. Cancer.org, breastcancer.org, a-zbreastcancer.org, and a couple tech science publications too...GUESS WHAT THE EXPERTS SAY?!....

The National Cancer Institute reviewed many studies and concluded abortions do not increase risk of breast cancer
106 Science Claims and a Truckful of Baloney, By William Speed Weed, Appearing in "The Best American Science and Nature Writing" and Popular Science Magazine

Linking these 2 topics understandably generates a great deal of emotion, as well as controversy. Research studies, however, have not found a cause-and-effect relationship between abortion and breast cancer
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_Can_Having_an_Abortion_Cause_or_Contribut e_to_Breast_Cancer.asp

In 2003, over 100 breast cancer and pregnancy experts held a workshop with the National Cancer Institute to discuss the abortion - breast cancer link. The panel of experts concluded that having an induced abortion does not increase a woman's risk factor for breast cancer...http://cancer.about.com/od/breastcancercausesfaqs/f/abortioncancer.htm

Abortion Does Not Increase Risk of Breast Cancer
G. Larfors et al.
http://www.breastcancer.org/research_abortion.html

"Let's not cloud the issue by using breast cancer research as a tool in a political agenda...There are plenty of good reasons not to opt for an abortion. Fear of breast cancer should not be thrown into the mix. As it stands now, there is not enough evidence to say that breast cancer is a side effect of having an abortion"...http://www.a-zbreastcancer.com/

AND MY PERSONAL FAVORITE, THIS ONES FOR YOU AJK
Researchers led by cell biologist Eva Lee of the University of California, Irvine, have determined that the abortion drug RU-486 can keep tumors at bay in mice bred with a gene destined to give them breast cancer...http://www.technewsworld.com/story/54514.html

[something]

Why don't you set this thread in the abortion forum?

But you have good points here, I would like to see AJK defend himself to this :D

[ajk]

Ok, you want a source, then look at this:

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/The_Link.htm

From that very source comes the following incidentally:

Dr. Janet Daling, an abortion supporter, and her colleagues at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center were commissioned by the National Cancer Institute to conduct a study to determine if induced abortion raises breast cancer risk. The study found that, "among women who had been pregnant at least once, the risk of breast cancer in those who had experienced an induced abortion was 50% higher than among other women."

Also from Dr. Daling: "I have three sisters with breast cancer; I resent people messing with scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or pro-life. I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid, and our data is accurate. It's not a matter of believing, it's a matter of what is."

[something]

Ok, you want a source, then look at this:

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/The_Link.htm

From that very source comes the following incidentally:

Dr. Janet Daling, an abortion supporter, and her colleagues at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center were commissioned by the National Cancer Institute to conduct a study to determine if induced abortion raises breast cancer risk. The study found that, "among women who had been pregnant at least once, the risk of breast cancer in those who had experienced an induced abortion was 50% higher than among other women."

Also from Dr. Daling: "I have three sisters with breast cancer; I resent people messing with scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or pro-life. I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid, and our data is accurate. It's not a matter of believing, it's a matter of what is."

Compared to what Thecidal Just said, that doesn't give much.

[ajk]

What do you mean that doesn't give much? This comes from a pro choice supporter! How in the world are you going to argue with that? She's on your side, and even she agrees that the link is there.

[something]

What do you mean that doesn't give much? This comes from a pro choice supporter! How in the world are you going to argue with that? She's on your side, and even she agrees that the link is there.

So you mean she still supports abortion, or were she USED to be a pro choice?

[ajk]

She is still pro choice as far as I know, nothing I could find says otherwise.

[something]

She is still pro choice as far as I know, nothing I could find says otherwise.

So she discovered that abortion is dangerous, but she still supports it?

[ajk]

Apparently that would be the case. Again nothing I have found would suggest she is pro life.

[Ausinus]

The Abortion - Breast Cancer link is nothing more than a scare tactic employed by pro life extremists in an attempt to scare women out of having them. Its more Anti-Choice bullshit, just like the Pro Lifers dont tell you that abortion, when performed by a professional, is safer than pregnancy.

[ajk]

Then why would someone pro choice agree that there was a link?

[Ausinus]

Then why would someone pro choice agree that there was a link?

Probably variable error.

[ajk]

Bullcrap. Your own side is telling you you're wrong, and you still refuse to believe. Man you're dumber then I ever thought you were.

[Ausinus]

Bullcrap. Your own side is telling you you're wrong, and you still refuse to believe. Man you're dumber then I ever thought you were.

One doctor, additionally did her study take into account lifestyle and hereditary, as those conducted by the National Science Institution and the major Breast Cancer organisations have?

[ajk]

She did in fact, you can find that info here in terms of specifics:

http://hometown.aol.com/dfjoseph/daling.html

[theicidal maniac]

Ok, you want a source, then look at this:

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/The_Link.htm

From that very source comes the following incidentally:

Dr. Janet Daling, an abortion supporter, and her colleagues at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center were commissioned by the National Cancer Institute to conduct a study to determine if induced abortion raises breast cancer risk. The study found that, "among women who had been pregnant at least once, the risk of breast cancer in those who had experienced an induced abortion was 50% higher than among other women."

Also from Dr. Daling: "I have three sisters with breast cancer; I resent people messing with scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or pro-life. I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid, and our data is accurate. It's not a matter of believing, it's a matter of what is."

The "study" could have benn 2 people. That's why you go to reputable scientific organizations sites

[ajk]

Read the 2nd link I posted please. You'll find it was not "2".

[yea_thats_right1]

Then why would someone pro choice agree that there was a link?

so that someone like you could say that very sentence. She could be pro-life saying shes pro-choice to gain trust on the other side.... ever hear or keep ur friends close but you enimies closer??? :rolleyes: hmmmmmmmmmm... think about it.. if you cant get that then you might be dumber than I thought :D

[something]

I don't see the point with religus people saying that abortion leads to breastcancer. They only want people stop abort, but when people don't listen they start layin. That's just not fair :mad:

[Ausinus]

Do you see pro choicers coming up with junk like "abortion will allow you to live longer" or "abortion will cure cancer"?

[something]

Do you see pro choicers coming up with junk like "abortion will allow you to live longer" or "abortion will cure cancer"?

That's exactly my point!

[theicidal maniac]

That's funny, the study AJK is talking about was publsihed 13 years ago...the ones I posted were from 3½ years ago..........

Also the study he posted said that women who had abortions before they were 18 were more likely to get breast cancer....THAT'S BECAUSE WOMEN WHO GET PREGNANT BEFORE 18 ARE MORE LIKELY TO GET BREAST CANCER, has nothing to do with abortion. Look up the facts, ajk, before you just take one snippet from one rogue, outdated study.

Your lack of logic skills is apalling...ONE doctor says that she sees a link and all of a sudden you are saying that MY side is against me? I'd tend to listen more to the National Cancer Institute when it comes to information on cancer. And they said there is no link. These are people who dedicate their lives to the fight against cancer, and in many cases could give two shits about abortion. They aren't trying to cover anything up because their MAIN CONCERN IS CANCER, NOT ABORTION. Can YOUR Dr. say that?

[something]

That's funny, the study AJK is talking about was publsihed 13 years ago...the ones I posted were from 3½ years ago..........

Also the study he posted said that women who had abortions before they were 18 were more likely to get breast cancer....THAT'S BECAUSE WOMEN WHO GET PREGNANT BEFORE 18 ARE MORE LIKELY TO GET BREAST CANCER, has nothing to do with abortion. Look up the facts, ajk, before you just take one snippet from one rogue, outdated study.

Your lack of logic skills is apalling...ONE doctor says that she sees a link and all of a sudden you are saying that MY side is against me? I'd tend to listen more to the National Cancer Institute when it comes to information on cancer. And they said there is no link. These are people who dedicate their lives to the fight against cancer, and in many cases could give two shits about abortion. They aren't trying to cover anything up because their MAIN CONCERN IS CANCER, NOT ABORTION. Can YOUR Dr. say that?

They also finded out that you don't get cancer because of cellphones. It's great to have them, we need people like them, that can fuck up ajks opinions and "facts".

[ajk]

That's funny, the study AJK is talking about was publsihed 13 years ago...the ones I posted were from 3½ years ago..........


So what? Facts are facts, whether they are 20 years old, or 1 year. Facts don't just change all of a sudden.

[ajk]

so that someone like you could say that very sentence. She could be pro-life saying shes pro-choice to gain trust on the other side.... ever hear or keep ur friends close but you enimies closer???

For that I refer you to this statement in one of the quotes I posted:
I resent people messing with scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or pro-life.

[Ausinus]

So what? Facts are facts, whether they are 20 years old, or 1 year. Facts don't just change all of a sudden.

They can, especially when technological and scientific advances have shed new light on a particular "fact". And it is not a "fact" that abortion causes breast cancer, its a "theory"

[Ausinus]

For that I refer you to this statement in one of the quotes I posted:
I resent people messing with scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or pro-life.

Well how are you sure she isnt doing it?

[ajk]

Because she herself said she would have loved to find there was no link between the two. But she did.

[Ausinus]

Because she herself said she would have loved to find there was no link between the two. But she did.

She could be lying, so your answer still doesnt answer the question.

[ajk]

Oh come off it, you're so afraid to admit you're wrong aren't you? I swear I could give all the evidence in the world for anything, and you wouldn't admit to a thing.

Furthermore I highly doubt she would lie if she said something like that. That's just what you want to think so you can say you're right even when you're not.

[Ausinus]

In any case, the website you posted is a pro life website. We have posted links of objective websites, such as the British Medical Journal and the National Science Institute.

[ajk]

Whether someone is pro life or not in matters like this, should not matter. Facts are the facts no matter who says them. What about the first site anyhow?

[ajk]

More from Daling on her findings:
"If politics gets involved in science, it will really hold back the progress that we make."

[Ausinus]

Whether someone is pro life or not in matters like this, should not matter. Facts are the facts no matter who says them. What about the first site anyhow?

I was talking about how it is a pro life WEBSITE. They only post findings that suit their purposes, and they have a predisposed opinion upon said findings.

[ajk]

Again that should not matter. Facts are still facts regardless of the source.

[Ausinus]

Again that should not matter. Facts are still facts regardless of the source.

Its not a fact, its a theory, for the last time. Facts are proven beyond reasonable doubt. Additionally, your website isnt a scientific organisation, it has a predisposed opinion upon the matter.

[theicidal maniac]

I highly doubt she would lie if she said something like that. That's just what you want to think so you can say you're right even when you're not.

Yet you DO believe that The National Cancer Institute is involved in a massive cover-up?

[ajk]

Yes it is a fact, again a doctor from your own side even said this. How you can still argue it even in the face of that is beyond me.

[ajk]

Yet you DO believe that The National Cancer Institute is involved in a massive cover-up?

Honestly I wouldn't doubt it. You know why? Abortion= money. No abortions= less money for the government. Money talks in today's society.

[theicidal maniac]

Yes it is a fact, again a doctor from your own side even said this. How you can still argue it even in the face of that is beyond me.

It is not a fact. What "fact" are you talking about? Again, her claim was that having an abortion under 18 will make you more likely to get Breast Cancer, but in truth getting pregnant under 18 increases the chances, whether you have an abortion or not. Sure you can cut the non-abortion girls out of the study to form the conclusion that you want, but that isn't science, that's manipulative lying.

[theicidal maniac]

Honestly I wouldn't doubt it. You know why? Abortion= money. No abortions= less money for the government. Money talks in today's society.

The National Cancer Institute is NOT AN ABORTION CLINIC STUPID-ASS!

[ajk]

That's not the point. Where do you think the money made from abortions goes?

[Ausinus]

That's not the point. Where do you think the money made from abortions goes?

To pay for those who work at the clinic and to provide better and cleaner facilities for abortion. It doesnt go to the NSI, or the BMJ, or the government.

[theicidal maniac]

That's not the point. Where do you think the money made from abortions goes?

Not to the National Cancer Institute
It goes to the Clinics.

You are attempting to link a research institute with clinics, and you are completely off track. They have nothing to do with one another. The Nat'l Cancer Inst. only has ONE agenda, and that is to cure and prevent cancer...and they have determined, conclusively, that there is no threat of cancer from abortion...they are ruling out possible causes, which is a function of effective research

[ajk]

You really think the government isn't going to take a chunk of that?

[Ausinus]

You really think the government isn't going to take a chunk of that?

Nope. All they do is tax, and they tax the same as any other medical institute.

[ajk]

That's exactly my point. If there's no abortions to be done, then that's one less outlet from which they can tax.

[theicidal maniac]

You really think the government isn't going to take a chunk of that?

They don't. If anything, they are helping to fund it.

[Ausinus]

Face it ajk, there is no reason why the NCI would provide false findings, if any of its members did they would be ostracised.

[ajk]

I've already said why, it's all about money. Less abortions would mean less money for the government.

[ajk]

Face it ajk, there is no reason why the NCI would provide false findings, if any of its members did they would be ostracised.

Let me ask you this, couldn't they fix the research as it were to support their claim?

[Ausinus]

Let me ask you this, couldn't they fix the research as it were to support their claim?

Why would they? They had no predisposed opinion on the matter, they were trying to find if abortion causes breast cancer, and they have found no significant link between them.

[ajk]

That doesn't answer the question.

[Ausinus]

Let me ask you this, couldn't they fix the research as it were to support their claim?

There is no reason to do so. In any case, if you present the whole experiment, which they did, a qualified scientist could see that the experiment lead to the results. So the answer is yes, its possible, but very difficult and highly unlikely.

[theicidal maniac]

Let me ask you this, couldn't they fix the research as it were to support their claim?

No. Because there are many scientists checking each others work. They would rip any false information to shreds, and the offending scientists would be expelled from the scientific community.

Your Dr. however didn't cite any co-contributers, she just said she personally interviewed the subjects. Nothing about any others checking her work...so I guess SHE could have falsified HER work.

[ajk]

But I ask why would she do that? After all she is pro choice. What would be the point in making up something that goes against her feelings on abortion?

[Ausinus]

But I ask why would she do that? After all she is pro choice. What would be the point in making up something that goes against her feelings on abortion?

Maybe she didnt experiment properly, maybe she is actually pro life, there are a bunch of reasons.

[hitekredneck]

Maybe she didnt experiment properly, maybe she is actually pro life, there are a bunch of reasons.

maybe she tripped and drank her bong water?:D

[Ausinus]

maybe she tripped and drank her bong water?:D

Or maybe shes actually a redneck :p

[hitekredneck]

Or maybe shes actually a redneck :p

fuckin aussies:p

[theicidal maniac]

But I ask why would she do that? After all she is pro choice. What would be the point in making up something that goes against her feelings on abortion?

Then WHY would you think that the NCI would falsify, but that your Dr. couldn't possibly have? What do you see as the difference? It's amazing how your brain is so selective but you are still able to breathe and type...

[ajk]

The difference is, the NCI could have an agenda for all we know on this (not saying they do, but they could), but the Dr. I somehow doubt would for the reasons I already mentioned.

[Ausinus]

The difference is, the NCI could have an agenda for all we know on this (not saying they do, but they could), but the Dr. I somehow doubt would for the reasons I already mentioned.

What possible agenda could they have?

[ajk]

Well they are funded by the Federal Government, and they know if less abortions happen (which I'm sure would if the truth came out to all about the breast cancer link), they would probably get less money from said government since the Government gets some of it's money through the abortions.

[Ausinus]

Well they are funded by the Federal Government, and they know if less abortions happen (which I'm sure would if the truth came out to all about the breast cancer link), they would probably get less money from said government since the Government gets some of it's money through the abortions.

An infinitesmal amount would from abortion. Barely a few K. They get exponentially more from standard taxes and most other medical procedures. If they did tamper with results for money, it would be far more likely that they would be saying that asbestos doesnt cause lung cancer. Additionally, you would have a lot of other scientists looking at their experiments. It would be near impossible to fake it.

[theicidal maniac]

Well they are funded by the Federal Government, and they know if less abortions happen (which I'm sure would if the truth came out to all about the breast cancer link), they would probably get less money from said government since the Government gets some of it's money through the abortions.

you are basing that on a comment that I made. I said "if anything they receive funding. But I was guessing. I don't know if they get grants. And there is no agenda other than ending cancer.

[ajk]

I wasn't basing that on anything. That is simply how I see it. I could be wrong, and if I am so be it. But I know that if nothing else Planned Parenthood at least has an agenda. They don't care about the welfare of the woman at all, all they care about is making money. That's it.

[theicidal maniac]

I wasn't basing that on anything. That is simply how I see it. I could be wrong, and if I am so be it. But I know that if nothing else Planned Parenthood at least has an agenda. They don't care about the welfare of the woman at all, all they care about is making money. That's it.

So they are receiving federal aid because......because that's how you see it????

How can you say you KNOW that PP has an agenda when you have been wrong about everything else?

[ajk]

Because if they did care about the woman, they wouldn't be hiding the truth about what abortions can do to them.

[Ausinus]

Because if they did care about the woman, they wouldn't be hiding the truth about what abortions can do to them.

The abortion/breast cancer link is NOT truth, it is mere speculation. As for the safety of abortion; Do you tell women that in the year 2000, 4 women died due to clinical abortion, but 525 died due to childbirth complications? Do you tell them that these rates have been similar since 1979, when abortion on demand was first legalised? No, you rant on about how "unsafe" clinical abortions are, when the fact is you have a greater probability of dying during childbirth.

An interesting fact: the rate of breast cancer occurence in the US have actually FALLEN in recent years.

[ajk]

You want to go the stats route, well how about this then? You people think that in the year before Roe vs. Wade 5,000 or more women died because of illegal and unsafe abortions. That's wrong. The actual fact is in 1972, there were only 39 such instances.

[Ausinus]

You want to go the stats route, well how about this then? You people think that in the year before Roe vs. Wade 5,000 or more women died because of illegal and unsafe abortions. That's wrong. The actual fact is in 1972, there were only 39 such instances.

I never questioned it. But we have reduced that number from 39 to 4 by legalising abortion. Additionally, the number of illegal abortions prior to 1979 was about 1.2 million a year, as concluded by a 1969 study.

[theicidal maniac]

Because if they did care about the woman, they wouldn't be hiding the truth about what abortions can do to them.

They've openly declared the truth; there is no link! Hooray!!

[ajk]

Yeah because they know if they admit the REAL truth, they'd be out of business really quick.

[Ausinus]

Yeah because they know if they admit the REAL truth, they'd be out of business really quick.

What REAL truth? You only think its REAL because it only gives you one more reason to deny women their freedoms.

[ajk]

No because I actually give a damn about their well being. Women deserve better then what they get in these clinics.

[ajk]

You want to see what really goes on? Well then read this:

http://www.prolifeaction.org/providers/everett.htm

This comes directly from someone who used to work in the abortion clinics (and has since gotten out of it). There's your truth, there's your reality that you seem to be denying.

[something]

You want to see what really goes on? Well then read this:

http://www.prolifeaction.org/providers/everett.htm

This comes directly from someone who used to work in the abortion clinics (and has since gotten out of it). There's your truth, there's your reality that you seem to be denying.

That was the most fucking bullshit i've ever read. If anyone denyis the truth, is it the person that wrought that. That was just an opinoin from the one that were used to work at an abortion clinic, and there's no fact in that. The closest it ever come to fact, was that women in the beginning that made an abortion and then her life fall appart. How fucking can bullshit be? I can honestly say that you stept over the line this time ajk.

[ajk]

Does this sound like opinion to you?

There are usually two questions the girls ask. The first is: Does it hurt? "Oh, no. Your uterus is a muscle. It's a cramp to open it: a cramp to close it; it's a slight cramping sensation. Everybody's had cramps - every woman in the world."

Then they ask: Is it a baby? "No, it's product of conception; it's a blood clot; it's a piece of tissue."

and

The girls that walk out of there are the lucky ones. We were seeing over 500 abortions per month and doing one-day second and third trimester abortions. We didn't use the laminaria, we did all the dilation on that one day and we were seeing a tremendous amount of complications.

Yes, we had a death. A 32-year old woman with a 17-year-old son and a 2-year-old son. Never made the papers. Her boyfriend felt guilty for his part in the abortion and he didn't want to deal with it. Her family thought, yes, she had probably had an abortion, but they didn't want to deal with it. It never came out. No lawsuit.

Then there was the girl who the doctors decided had a fibroid tumor at the back of her uterus. That's a highly common tumor that's very rarely malignant. The two doctors decided they were just going to pull it out after her abortion. They didn't know they were pulling on the back of her uterus, and they pulled the uterus out wrong-side-out of a 21-year-old; she had a hysterectomy.

[ajk]

And how about this too? (from others in the industry)

"In fact many women will come to me considering abortion, and I have been personally told that I am to turn the monitor away from her view so that seeing her baby jump around on the screen does not influence her choice."

Shari Richards, quoted from the John Ankerburg Show on 3/7/90

"In my facilities, I always gave option counseling. Of course you make the abortion the most appealing. I told them about adoption and about foster care and about [when there was welfare] assistance. The typical way it would go is, "Well, you know you can place your baby out for adoption." But then, in the second breath you would say, "That's an option available to you, but you also have to realize that there's going to be a baby of yours out here somewhere in the world you will never see again. At least with abortion you know what's happening. You can go on with your life...The longer I was in it, the less I cared, so I really didn't really care what my conscience said. My conscience was totally numb anyway. But what it did do was public relations-wise. You were able, when a reporter or TV crew came, to pull out a packet of information for the patients to read and they received it. So what can anybody say? Publicly it looked good -- in reality it was another tool that was used to force a woman into abortion. It's typical -- I would give them an option and then shoot it down. The only option you didn't shoot down, obviously, was abortion."

Former abortionist Eric Harrah quoted by Dr. Jack Willke and Brad Mattes

"I have never yet counseled anybody to have the baby. I'm also doing women's counseling on campus at Albany State, and there I am expected to present alternatives. Whereas at the abortion clinic you aren't really expected to."
--abortion counselor

"I was trained by a professional marketing director in how to sell abortions over the telephone. He took every one of our receptionists, nurses, and anyone else who would deal with people over the phone through an extensive training period. The object was, when the girl called, to hook the sale so that she wouldn't get an abortion somewhere else, or adopt out her baby, or change her mind. We were doing it for the money."
--Nina Whitten, chief secretary at a Dallas abortion clinic under Dr. Curtis Boyd

"They [the women] are never allowed to look at the ultrasound because we knew that if they so much as heard the heart beat, they wouldn't want to have an abortion."-Dr. Randall

"If a woman we were counseling expressed doubts about having an abortion, we would say whatever was necessary to persuade her to abort immediately."
--Judy W., former office manager of the second largest abortion clinic in El Paso, Texas

"The counselor at our clinic would cry with the girls at the drop of a hat. She would find their weakness and work on it. The women were never given any alternatives. They were told how much trouble it is to have a baby."
--former abortion worker Debra Harry, quoted in the film "Meet the Abortion Providers" 1989

"When discussing the sonogram, you are supposed to tell the client that it is a measurement as far as the pregnancy is concerned, but not a measure of the fetal head or anything like that."
--Rosemary Petruso, on her training to be an abortion counselor. Her story appeared in the St. Louis Review and was also quoted in "Women Exploited: The Other Victims of Abortion" Paula Ervin, editor. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor, 1985

"Sometimes we lied. A girl might ask what her baby was like at a certain point in the pregnancy: Was it a baby yet? Even as early as 12 weeks a baby is totally formed, he has fingerprints, turns his head, fans his toes, feels pain. But we would say 'It's not a baby yet. It's just tissue, like a clot.'"
--Kathy Sparks told in "The Conversion of Kathy Sparks" by Gloria Williamson, Christian Herald Jan 1986 p 28

Need I go any further?

[who897]

Who the fuck cares if abortion "can" lead to breast cancer? Every fucking thing in the world can cause cancer. Take pork for instance, is everyone not eating now because of the link. Used motor oil causes cancer. Is everyone not changing their car oil because of that? I think not. The sun causes cancer. Is everyone coming up with an idea to blow up the sun so it can't? I think not.

Here's some truths you should find out
1) How much will that freaking thing cost you to raise for 18 yrs
2) Is there any guarantee that you'll be happy that you've had it
3) Is personal preference of one justification enough to deny rights of a whole

[something]

And how about this too? (from others in the industry)

"In fact many women will come to me considering abortion, and I have been personally told that I am to turn the monitor away from her view so that seeing her baby jump around on the screen does not influence her choice."

Shari Richards, quoted from the John Ankerburg Show on 3/7/90

"In my facilities, I always gave option counseling. Of course you make the abortion the most appealing. I told them about adoption and about foster care and about [when there was welfare] assistance. The typical way it would go is, "Well, you know you can place your baby out for adoption." But then, in the second breath you would say, "That's an option available to you, but you also have to realize that there's going to be a baby of yours out here somewhere in the world you will never see again. At least with abortion you know what's happening. You can go on with your life...The longer I was in it, the less I cared, so I really didn't really care what my conscience said. My conscience was totally numb anyway. But what it did do was public relations-wise. You were able, when a reporter or TV crew came, to pull out a packet of information for the patients to read and they received it. So what can anybody say? Publicly it looked good -- in reality it was another tool that was used to force a woman into abortion. It's typical -- I would give them an option and then shoot it down. The only option you didn't shoot down, obviously, was abortion."

Former abortionist Eric Harrah quoted by Dr. Jack Willke and Brad Mattes

"I have never yet counseled anybody to have the baby. I'm also doing women's counseling on campus at Albany State, and there I am expected to present alternatives. Whereas at the abortion clinic you aren't really expected to."
--abortion counselor

"I was trained by a professional marketing director in how to sell abortions over the telephone. He took every one of our receptionists, nurses, and anyone else who would deal with people over the phone through an extensive training period. The object was, when the girl called, to hook the sale so that she wouldn't get an abortion somewhere else, or adopt out her baby, or change her mind. We were doing it for the money."
--Nina Whitten, chief secretary at a Dallas abortion clinic under Dr. Curtis Boyd

"They [the women] are never allowed to look at the ultrasound because we knew that if they so much as heard the heart beat, they wouldn't want to have an abortion."-Dr. Randall

"If a woman we were counseling expressed doubts about having an abortion, we would say whatever was necessary to persuade her to abort immediately."
--Judy W., former office manager of the second largest abortion clinic in El Paso, Texas

"The counselor at our clinic would cry with the girls at the drop of a hat. She would find their weakness and work on it. The women were never given any alternatives. They were told how much trouble it is to have a baby."
--former abortion worker Debra Harry, quoted in the film "Meet the Abortion Providers" 1989

"When discussing the sonogram, you are supposed to tell the client that it is a measurement as far as the pregnancy is concerned, but not a measure of the fetal head or anything like that."
--Rosemary Petruso, on her training to be an abortion counselor. Her story appeared in the St. Louis Review and was also quoted in "Women Exploited: The Other Victims of Abortion" Paula Ervin, editor. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor, 1985

"Sometimes we lied. A girl might ask what her baby was like at a certain point in the pregnancy: Was it a baby yet? Even as early as 12 weeks a baby is totally formed, he has fingerprints, turns his head, fans his toes, feels pain. But we would say 'It's not a baby yet. It's just tissue, like a clot.'"
--Kathy Sparks told in "The Conversion of Kathy Sparks" by Gloria Williamson, Christian Herald Jan 1986 p 28

Need I go any further?

You don't need to go any further because you CAN'T go any further. Abortion is, in many cases, a necessery surgery for the ones who choose to do it, and all kinds of surgery has had, more or less, cases of death, and just because some people already were against abortion, so were there something special when it happend during the abortion.

I don't know if you actually beliefs in this bullshit about abortion, or if you just is trying to fool us, but it will never give you the right to lie. :mad:

[ajk]

How am I lying? This is all coming right from the horse's mouth. The clinics are the ones that lie and deceive.

[something]

How am I lying? This is all coming right from the horse's mouth. The clinics are the ones that lie and deceive.

No, they just know that there's just like many cases of bieffects and death in abortion like in other surgery, but since many people are against aborton so do they shut up about it, because in else they would be out of business.

[ajk]

Did you even read about what goes on? These women get lied to before the abortion, they are deceived.

[General Septem]

Abortion clinics regularly deny women the right to change their mind once they're on the table.

[yea_thats_right1]

well thats sad. but wouldnt denying abortion all together be almost the same concept?

[ajk]

Not really, it would be better. These abortions are not safe in the least. On top of that the woman doesn't even get a chance to recuperate from it. They kick her out after the procedure. I don't know about you but if I knew this, I wouldn't trust them at all. It's obvious all they care about is money.

[General Septem]

well thats sad. but wouldnt denying abortion all together be almost the same concept?

I've never said anything about denying anyone anything.

Actually, that's not entirely true. I have said something regarding denial of choice - I don't think it's the solution. People must do what is right because they believe it is right, not because they're forced into it. Otherwise it defeats the purpose. That said, people still kill each other, so there's little point in saying that making abortion illegal will infringe upon anyone's personal choice.

[yea_thats_right1]

a woman who wants to terminate a pregnancy is not going to care why doctors perform abortions, they are going to care about when and how much.

[ajk]

No, they just know that there's just like many cases of bieffects and death in abortion like in other surgery, but since many people are against aborton so do they shut up about it, because in else they would be out of business.

That's precisely my point. Women have a right to know things like this, that these things can and do happen. But often times they don't, because of the greed factor.

[yea_thats_right1]

That's precisely my point. Women have a right to know things like this, that these things can and do happen. But often times they don't, because of the greed factor.

i agree completely with you guys when it comes to women and men becoming more educated about abortions. I agree that aparently there isnt enough information available to make an educated choice about weather or not to have an abortion... however, more information will not conform everyone... there are still going to be pregnancies from rape, still going to have pregnancies that severly endanger a womans life and those things compared that info wont be enough in most cases...

[Ausinus]

I say again, women have an exponentially greater chance of dying during childbirth than from a safely done clinical abortion. 4:525 in the year 2000.

Abortionists are NOT the greedy assholes you make them out to be. They are just like any good doctor - they make sure that women are relaxed and absolutley sure about the procedure right up until they begin the abortion. An abortion clinic is just like any good clinic, all the instruments are kept clean and the room is kept spotless.

They are just like ANY other sort of doctor. Why dont you cast dermatologists, obstetricians and neurologists in a similar light- because you dont have any conflicts with the procedure they are doing. What you are doing is called mudslinging.

[ajk]

No I'm not, again read some of the quotes I posted. You want the truth, that is it.

[Ausinus]

No I'm not, again read some of the quotes I posted. You want the truth, that is it.

The truth is nothing but opinions. Ever actually been inside an abortion clinic, not just spouting your drivel outside it?

[theicidal maniac]

Whaqt you are trying to do is demonize these doctors that are only trying to improve the quality of life for their patients, women. In the future they'll probably be seen as heroes, because we are already overpopulating. But don't try to dehumanize them with your garbage verbal attacks, they are good people. Trying to make them sound like greedy mad-scientists give justification to other murderers: people who blow up abortion clinics. Those people are the murderers, destroying ESTABLISHED, PRODUCTIVE LIVES and setting back science and humanity by centuries.

[Ausinus]

Whaqt you are trying to do is demonize these doctors that are only trying to improve the quality of life for their patients, women. In the future they'll probably be seen as heroes, because we are already overpopulating. But don't try to dehumanize them with your garbage verbal attacks, they are good people. Trying to make them sound like greedy mad-scientists give justification to other murderers: people who blow up abortion clinics. Those people are the murderers, destroying ESTABLISHED, PRODUCTIVE LIVES and setting back science and humanity by centuries.


Exactly. Abortionists are just like any good doctor. They follow the hippocratic oath too you know.

Why dont you demonise neurologists, especislly since you have a bigger chance of dying due to neurosurgery?

[ajk]

The truth is nothing but opinions. Ever actually been inside an abortion clinic, not just spouting your drivel outside it?

Not quite, because these "opinions" come from people who actually worked inside the clinics. How you think those can be opinions is beyond me.

[General Septem]

Why dont you demonise neurologists, especislly since you have a bigger chance of dying due to neurosurgery?

Because their job is not to kill innocent human beings.

[General Septem]

I say again, women have an exponentially greater chance of dying during childbirth than from a safely done clinical abortion. 4:525 in the year 2000.

Yeah, but how many abortions were performed in relation to how many births were there? If these women had had better doctors they would've known to get c-sections.

[Ausinus]

Because their job is not to kill innocent human beings.

Amazing how you think they are innocent and still believe in original sin.

[General Septem]

Amazing how you think they are innocent and still believe in original sin.

More innocent than any of us, then, and certainly not guilty of anything to merit their slaughter, which is only justified if the person you kill is trying to harm you and you have no other choice.

[theicidal maniac]

More innocent than us BECAUSE THEY HAVE MADE NO SOCIETAL CONTRIBUTION, no interaction with other humans. We are not talkiong about 8½ month gestated babies...we are talking about embryos. Embryos are not humans.

[ajk]

Yes they are. As I said they are just in a different stage of development then we are.

[Ausinus]

Yes they are. As I said they are just in a different stage of development then we are.

If you had to save a 10 year old boys life at the expense of an embryo, would you do it?

[ajk]

No, because you cannot take one life for the sake of another.

[Ausinus]

No, because you cannot take one life for the sake of another.

But you still believe in self defense no?

[ajk]

Yes but that's entirely different from this. Obviously in that case if you have to kill the person so that he can't kill you, then so be it. Murdering one life to save another is another matter.

[Ausinus]

Yes but that's entirely different from this. Obviously in that case if you have to kill the person so that he can't kill you, then so be it. Murdering one life to save another is another matter.

No, its no different. Its just that a third party is involved.

[ajk]

Yes it is, the child isn't willfully being a threat to your existence. Whereas in the case of self defense the person is.

[Ausinus]

Yes it is, the child isn't willfully being a threat to your existence. Whereas in the case of self defense the person is.

So then who would you choose to die - the 10 year old or the embryo? Oh wait, I shouldnt ask you because you have the whole "I was nearly aborted" thing fed to you by your fascist dad biasing you.

[ajk]

I would do whatever I could to save the 10 year old, without sacrificing the embryo. If the 10 year old could not be saved, then so be it. It would be unfortunate, but what can you do.

[Ausinus]

I would do whatever I could to save the 10 year old, without sacrificing the embryo. If the 10 year old could not be saved, then so be it. It would be unfortunate, but what can you do.

You have seriously confused priorities - especially since the chances of said embryo surviving are exponentially less than that of the 10 year old.

[ajk]

Does not matter. You cannot take another life to spare the other, unless it's self defense which this isn't.

[Ausinus]

Does not matter. You cannot take another life to spare the other, unless it's self defense which this isn't.

So lets just let them both die. If it were me - screw the embryo, id save the child.

[theicidal maniac]

No, because you cannot take one life for the sake of another.

Would you trade an abortion doctors life for an embryo?

[ajk]

No, I would not do it in any instance.

[Ausinus]

No, I would not do it in any instance.

Reall? So all those abortion doctors who got killed because of what they do arent really bad things then?

[ajk]

What they are doing may be bad, but not them as people.

[theicidal maniac]

There is something seriously wrong with you if you think that an establixhed, productive life of worth the same as an embryo. That embryo IS JUST A CLUMP OF CELLS no matter how you look at it. Sure, it could BECOME a human, but it hasn't yet, and we could inject it with genes to make it become something else entirely, it's fate is not even set yet. Yeah you can say it has the beginnings of a brain, but it hasn't had enough stimulus to think like a human. You can say it has a heart that beats, but as I said in another posts, scientists can now take heart cells, inject them into bio-gel with a printer, and produce a tiny, beating heart, that is NOT part of a human. An embryo is NOT a human

[ajk]

Yes it is, clump of cells or not it's still a person.

[Ausinus]

Yes it is, clump of cells or not it's still a person.

Define person.

[ajk]

From the moment of conception, till death that life in the womb is a person.

[Ausinus]

From the moment of conception, till death that life in the womb is a person.

You still didnt define person. What traits make a person?

[ajk]

Because it's growing in the womb that's why. As soon as that egg is fertilized that is a person. That is my answer.

[Ausinus]

Because it's growing in the womb that's why. As soon as that egg is fertilized that is a person. That is my answer.

Do you have your glasses on? I asked: what are the criteria for personhood? I did not ask if it was a person.

[ajk]

Conception is the only criteria needed for personhood.

[Ausinus]

Conception is the only criteria needed for personhood.

So then why arent any other placental mammals people? Additionally - would you can a self aware robot with emotions a person?

[ajk]

Because they are in an animal, not a human being. Conception in another human being is the only criteria needed.

[Ausinus]

Because they are in an animal, not a human being. Conception in another human being is the only criteria needed.

So if we took a human ovum and injected it with chimpanzee DNA, which would essentially make it a chimpanzee, would it still be a person? And what about ovum fertilised outside the womb?

Humans are animals. Domain Eukaryota, Kingdom Animalia, Phylum Chordata, Class Mammalia, Order Primata, Family Hominidae, Genus Homo, Species Homo Sapiens.

[ajk]

We are and we aren't, we are smarter then animals.

[Ausinus]

We are and we aren't, we are smarter then animals.

Other animals have different intelligences to us - they are not just primitive models of our acheivements. Biologically we are animals

So then intelligence is the criteria for personhood?

[ajk]

I already told you what the criteria is. Conception in a human being is criteria enough for it to be a person.

As for the chimp thing, no because that's not a person that's an animal. Human DNA in that womb is good enough to call it a person, whether conceived naturally or otherwise.

[Ausinus]

I already told you what the criteria is. Conception in a human being is criteria enough for it to be a person.

As for the chimp thing, no because that's not a person that's an animal. Human DNA in that womb is good enough to call it a person, whether conceived naturally or otherwise.

So what about IVF embryos, who are conceived outside the womb?

[ajk]

That's still a human, because it has human DNA.

[Ausinus]

That's still a human, because it has human DNA.

So then human DNA is the criteria for personhood? Would you call an alien or robot with equal intelligence and emotion to a human a person?

[ajk]

No I would not.

[Ausinus]

No I would not.

Why wouldnt you? If they felt emotion and were as intelligent as humans, why wouldnt you call them someone rather than something?

[ajk]

Because it's not human, it may have emotions or be capable of them but it still is not human.

[Ausinus]

Because it's not human, it may have emotions or be capable of them but it still is not human.

I said person, not human. Are you that humanocentric as to deny them personhood?

[ajk]

However you want to put it the answer is still no. The alien is still alien in nature, and the robot is still robotic in nature.

[Ausinus]

However you want to put it the answer is still no. The alien is still alien in nature, and the robot is still robotic in nature.

Why wouldnt you call it a person - because it isnt human? In any case, you have yet to define accurate criteria for personhood. The general consensus it that a person is -

A self aware, sentient and rational being.

[ajk]

Just because you don't agree with my definiton doesn't mean it isn't accurate.

[Ausinus]

Just because you don't agree with my definiton doesn't mean it isn't accurate.

Your definition isnt accurate as personhood is not necessarily exclusive to humanity. In fact, if we used your definition that would give people the right to exterminate an alien race, even if they are sentient and sapient.

[theicidal maniac]

I already told you what the criteria is. Conception in a human being is criteria enough for it to be a person.

As for the chimp thing, no because that's not a person that's an animal. Human DNA in that womb is good enough to call it a person, whether conceived naturally or otherwise.

Did you know that they can take sperm dna and put it in an egg and fuse the two using an electrical current? You can grow a human embryo that way, and then put it in a woman with the same blood type and get a human clone...so that clone was never "conceived"...do you consider THAT to be a human being? Cause it IS. It wasn't when it was just a strand of dna and an egg. But scientists animate it with electricity, and it begins to grow. No "love-making, no conception, but it becomes a human.

[ajk]

In that case yes it is human, once in a womb.

[Ausinus]

In that case yes it is human, once in a womb.

Lets say scientists develop an artificial uterus. Would a human grown in that be a person. Or if it was grown in a chimpanzee uterus?

[theicidal maniac]

In that case yes it is human, once in a womb.

So when they develop an artificial womb, you won't consider the people that come out of it to be people? And why don't you consider THAT embryo to be a human life when it is not in the womb, but you are calling people murderers for aborting OTHER embryos of the same type?

[TheSpectacularSecularist]

Does anyone even make that claim?

[MrJim]

Does anyone even make that claim?

Hmm… I'm not sure why you drug this ol' skeleton out of the closet… but, for the record, of all the bodily damage caused by an abortion, breast cancer should be down at the bottom of the list of concerns…

[TheSpectacularSecularist]

Hmm… I'm not sure why you drug this ol' skeleton out of the closet… but, for the record, of all the bodily damage caused by an abortion, breast cancer should be down at the bottom of the list of concerns…

I was looking through threads started by TM, and I saw this.

I kind of thought that this would be like saying "Watching movies does not NOT lead to Child Molestation".

[presentationmall]

Man there has been a lot of bullshit trying to steer women away from abortion. Christian "wisdom" handed to patients as though it were medical science. AJK keeps talking about how the #1 preventable cause of breast cancer is selective abortion. He won't provide his sources, so I went and did some investigating, having read before in "The Best American Science and Nature Writing" that this claim is a lie. I assume that AJK was checking on anti-choice websites, so I went to the source. Cancer.org, breastcancer.org, a-zbreastcancer.org, and a couple tech science publications too...GUESS WHAT THE EXPERTS SAY?!....

The National Cancer Institute reviewed many studies and concluded abortions do not increase risk of breast cancer
106 Science Claims and a Truckful of Baloney, By William Speed Weed, Appearing in "The Best American Science and Nature Writing" and Popular Science Magazine

Linking these 2 topics understandably generates a great deal of emotion, as well as controversy. Research studies, however, have not found a cause-and-effect relationship between abortion and breast cancer
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_Can_Having_an_Abortion_Cause_or_Contribut e_to_Breast_Cancer.asp

In 2003, over 100 breast cancer and pregnancy experts held a workshop with the National Cancer Institute to discuss the abortion - breast cancer link. The panel of experts concluded that having an induced abortion does not increase a woman's risk factor for breast cancer...http://cancer.about.com/od/breastcancercausesfaqs/f/abortioncancer.htm

Abortion Does Not Increase Risk of Breast Cancer
G. Larfors et al.
http://www.breastcancer.org/research_abortion.html

"Let's not cloud the issue by using breast cancer research as a tool in a political agenda...There are plenty of good reasons not to opt for an abortion. Fear of breast cancer should not be thrown into the mix. As it stands now, there is not enough evidence to say that breast cancer is a side effect of having an abortion"...http://www.a-zbreastcancer.com/

AND MY PERSONAL FAVORITE, THIS ONES FOR YOU AJK
Researchers led by cell biologist Eva Lee of the University of California, Irvine, have determined that the abortion drug RU-486 can keep tumors at bay in mice bred with a gene destined to give them breast cancer...http://www.technewsworld.com/story/54514.html

Thanks for your information.

[Limbo]

Thanks for your information.

oh crap, another blog spammer it looks like. Check out the sig, links to their crap websites that they are trying to boost in google.

[theicidal maniac]

Can't believe this shit is still goin'

[theicidal maniac]

I was looking through threads started by TM, and I saw this.

I kind of thought that this would be like saying "Watching movies does not NOT lead to Child Molestation".

Yeah you are right, but there are people out there who think that abortion causes breast cancer, and try to use it as propaganda to keep people out of the abortion clinics.

Some of those people even post here on bullshit.com

But you are right...it is stupid.

[WhiteRaven]

Hey, TM is back...