toldailytopic: Breast cancer and abortion: do you believe there is a connection?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Beatrice

New member
If your sister were pregnant, would you correct her if she refered to it as her baby?

I don't have a sister. :) However, when I was pregnant indeed I did refer to, and in fact think of, my babies as 'babies'. I was slightly surprised to see the term 'foetus' used on the medical notes, too, particularly when the term is used to report on the condition of the child immediately after delivery. So, whilst I am content to think of babies as 'babies', when thinking in terms of those women who have chosen a termination, I think it is much more appropriate to use the medical term. It doesn't really help the woman to bandy around phrases such as 'murder' and 'slaughter'. But I fully support someone's right to campaign respectfully for whatever they believe is ethically right regarding this very difficult and complex issue. I personally believe that abortion should remain legal, but that the limit should be reduced, and I fully respect the right to opinion and respectful free speech of those who are anti-abortion.
 

MrDeets

TOL Subscriber
I don't have a sister. :) However, when I was pregnant indeed I did refer to, and in fact think of, my babies as 'babies'. I was slightly surprised to see the term 'foetus' used on the medical notes, too, particularly when the term is used to report on the condition of the child immediately after delivery. So, whilst I am content to think of babies as 'babies', when thinking in terms of those women who have chosen a termination, I think it is much more appropriate to use the medical term. It doesn't really help the woman to bandy around phrases such as 'murder' and 'slaughter'. But I fully support someone's right to campaign respectfully for whatever they believe is ethically right regarding this very difficult and complex issue. I personally believe that abortion should remain legal, but that the limit should be reduced, and I fully respect the right to opinion and respectful free speech of those who are anti-abortion.
Will you agree to use the terms sodomy and sodomite if the situation arises? Seems only fair that you use such terms, given you affinity for propriety.
 

Beatrice

New member
Will you agree to use the terms sodomy and sodomite if the situation arises? Seems only fair that you use such terms, given you affinity for propriety.

I can't see myself contributing to a thread on sex, jmdeets! However, if you are asking me what I assume you're asking me: to refer to homosexuals as 'sodomites'? then I can assure you I won't be doing that.
 

MrDeets

TOL Subscriber
I can't see myself contributing to a thread on sex, jmdeets!
I haven't seen a thread on sex yet, so you're safe there. However, sodomites often come up in conversations on morality on TOL, or in any thread to which aSeattleConservative contributes.:rotfl:

However, if you are asking me what I assume you're asking me: to refer to homosexuals as 'sodomites'? then I can assure you I won't be doing that.

Why not?:sheep:
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
I don't have a sister. :)
If you could answer a hypothetical on point, would you? :plain:

So, whilst I am content to think of babies as 'babies', when thinking in terms of those women who have chosen a termination, I think it is much more appropriate to use the medical term.
Why?

It doesn't really help the woman to bandy around phrases such as 'murder' and 'slaughter'.
Doesn't really help the unborn to distance the act with a less horrific word choice. So you're more of a mans-laughter sort of person. Or, to put it more succinctly, why the oddly one sided sensitivity?

But I fully support someone's right to campaign respectfully for whatever they believe is ethically right regarding this very difficult and complex issue.
I don't respect the choice to kill an infant, though I almost always object civilly enough.

I personally believe that abortion should remain legal,
I rather thought so. Aiding and abetting is the phrase that comes to mind.

but that the limit should be reduced,
This isn't trout season. Are you one of those PETA people who can't distinguish between pet and person? :squint:

and I fully respect the right to opinion and respectful free speech of those who are anti-abortion.
I respect the respect of respect...there, topped you. :plain:
 

aSeattleConserv

BANNED
Banned
There is a wealth of info on the web about the connection.

The connection makes a ton of sense if you think about it... here is an easy to read page that explains why there would be a connection between breast cancer and abortion.

Thanks for the link Knight. I had read about the connection several years ago but it didn't add up until now. With the INCESSANT fascination of the fight against breast cancer over other potentially deadly diseases, it makes total sense.

"Breast Cancer is the second most common cancer in the world,
killing approximately 400,000 women annually."
http://www.beatbreastcancerkit.com/main/

"Using AGI figures through 2005, estimating 1,206,200 abortions for 2006 and 2007, and factoring in the possible 3% undercount AGI estimates for its own figures, the total number of abortions performed in the U.S. since 1973 equals 49,551,703."
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html

With 50 million unborn babies murdered in the womb in a 37 year period, there are going to be scores of women battling a disease that basically says "You reap what you sow".
 

Cracked

New member
If your sister were pregnant, would you correct her if she refered to it as her baby?

sister: "I felt the baby kick several times today! It was kind of crazy, I wonder what's going on in there and..."

abortionist sister: "Hey wait a minute! Don't call it a baby - its a feotus. If you call it a baby you just enable those nut-ball pro-lifers, who are really just a bunch of misogynistic men out against empowered women."

I wonder if the word baby (when used to refer to the unborn) will become non-PC some day?
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
There seems to be a link between abortion and breast cancer as well as birth control pills and breast cancer. The real question is, is the link causal or anecdotal.
 

derwood

New member
With 50 million unborn babies murdered in the womb in a 37 year period, there are going to be scores of women battling a disease that basically says "You reap what you sow".


I understand that many women who have had abortions also get colds - obviously a link.

50 million unwanted babies aborted? Had they been born, we'd have millions of unwanted children and adults with us now, many of whom would have had horrible lives (many studies have shown that unwanted children suffer from all sorts of problems at higher rates than wanted ones), born into poor families - would you support helping these families out? with maybe welfare, or WIC?

I suspect not.

Of course, 50 million elective abortions pales in comparison to the nuber of spontaneous abortions - i.e., little babies killed by God in the womb....
 

nicholsmom

New member
50 million unwanted babies aborted? Had they been born, we'd have millions of unwanted children
1) Adoption ensures (or dramatically improves the chance that) that babies and children are wanted.
2) You have seriously underestimated the charm of a baby - his ability to worm his way into the hearts of his parents.
3) All are wanted by someone... God, for instance.

and adults
:squint: Excuse me??? What does that even mean? Are you suggesting that all babies who are not planned wind up being unwanted for all their lives? That's asinine. And this:
many of whom would have had horrible lives (many studies have shown that unwanted children suffer from all sorts of problems at higher rates than wanted ones),
will need support from a cited study - one that eliminates the influence of poverty (since poverty is the number one marker for troubled childhood). So pony-up, derwood.

born into poor families
as I thought - your source didn't separate the two things (lack of planning and poverty) which makes it a poor study yielding absolutely no trustworthy information.

- would you support helping these families out? with maybe welfare, or WIC?
What's wrong with community support? What's wrong with soup kitchens and homeless shelters and for that matter, what's wrong with adoption?

I suspect not.
But killing the baby is better? Is that your position? Why not kill all the poor then if they have such horrible lives? Put them out of their misery.

Of course, 50 million elective abortions pales in comparison to the nuber of spontaneous abortions - i.e., little babies killed by God in the womb....
This is emotion-baiting if I've ever seen it. :nono: Miscarriage has nothing to do with killing the unborn.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
There is no increased risk according to any peer reviewed study. Nor does any major medical body accept that Abortion causes increased breast cancer risk. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be anti-abortion, anyway.
What I have heard is that giving birth decreases the risk because of chemicals released during childbirth. So abortion decreases childbirth and therefore the risk for breast cancer is not decreased.

Just to be accurate, it's 'foetus', not baby.
Can you prove it's not a baby?

Again, here we can see the use of imprecise language in order to elicit an emotional response. A mother does not 'murder' her child since 'murder' is unlawful killing. Since abortion is legal (within a limited timespan) then a legal abortion cannot be simultaneously within the law and unlawful. This is why it is misleading to refer to it as 'murder'.
Actually murder, by definition, is immoral, unethical, or illegal killing. It does not have to be all three to be murder. And abortion is certainly immoral and unethical killing. It is the intentional taking of an innocent life.
 

King Ogre

New member
1) Adoption ensures (or dramatically improves the chance that) that babies and children are wanted.
2) You have seriously underestimated the charm of a baby - his ability to worm his way into the hearts of his parents.
3) All are wanted by someone... God, for instance.

:squint: Excuse me??? What does that even mean? Are you suggesting that all babies who are not planned wind up being unwanted for all their lives? That's asinine. And this:
will need support from a cited study - one that eliminates the influence of poverty (since poverty is the number one marker for troubled childhood). So pony-up, derwood.

as I thought - your source didn't separate the two things (lack of planning and poverty) which makes it a poor study yielding absolutely no trustworthy information.


What's wrong with community support? What's wrong with soup kitchens and homeless shelters and for that matter, what's wrong with adoption?


But killing the baby is better? Is that your position? Why not kill all the poor then if they have such horrible lives? Put them out of their misery.


This is emotion-baiting if I've ever seen it. :nono: Miscarriage has nothing to do with killing the unborn.

It's too soon to rep you again. Great post!
 

Turbo

Caped Crusader
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Again, here we can see the use of imprecise language in order to elicit an emotional response. A mother does not 'murder' her child since 'murder' is unlawful killing. Since abortion is legal (within a limited timespan) then a legal abortion cannot be simultaneously within the law and unlawful. This is why it is misleading to refer to it as 'murder'.

You are right that murder is "unlawful" killing. You are wrong to think that unlawful can only mean illegal. Virtually every dictionary uses the word "unlawful" in its definition of murder. And virtually every dictionary defines "unlawful" to mean "illegal" or "immoral." Look it up. So it is perfectly precise to say that the killing of an unborn human baby is murder regardless of whether a government has deemed it legal. It may be "lawful" according to man's law, but it is unlawful according to God's law.
 

Turbo

Caped Crusader
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Just to be accurate, it's 'foetus', not baby.
Here's Apple's the entry for "fetus" in Mac OS X's Dictionary application.

fetus |ˈfētəs| ( Brit. (in nontechnical use) also foetus)
noun ( pl. -tuses )
an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.​

Go figure.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Here's Apple's the entry for "fetus" in Mac OS X's Dictionary application.
fetus |ˈfētəs| ( Brit. (in nontechnical use) also foetus)
noun ( pl. -tuses )
an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.​
Go figure.
:BRAVO:

:sozo:Go :turbo:! Go :turbo:!
 

bybee

New member
Clinical Aspect of abortion

Clinical Aspect of abortion

1) Adoption ensures (or dramatically improves the chance that) that babies and children are wanted.
2) You have seriously underestimated the charm of a baby - his ability to worm his way into the hearts of his parents.
3) All are wanted by someone... God, for instance.

:squint: Excuse me??? What does that even mean? Are you suggesting that all babies who are not planned wind up being unwanted for all their lives? That's asinine. And this:
will need support from a cited study - one that eliminates the influence of poverty (since poverty is the number one marker for troubled childhood). So pony-up, derwood.

as I thought - your source didn't separate the two things (lack of planning and poverty) which makes it a poor study yielding absolutely no trustworthy information.


What's wrong with community support? What's wrong with soup kitchens and homeless shelters and for that matter, what's wrong with adoption?


But killing the baby is better? Is that your position? Why not kill all the poor then if they have such horrible lives? Put them out of their misery.


This is emotion-baiting if I've ever seen it. :nono: Miscarriage has nothing to do with killing the unborn.

What I am about to say may be disturbing to some. For that I apologize. When a miscarriage or abortion occurs, whether spontaneous or deliberate. a dilatation and curettage must be performed to be sure that the "Product of conception", that is, the as yet unborn person, is completely removed from the uterus.
In the case of a woman who loses an unborn baby through no fault of her own this is a grievous situation. The "D&C" is performed to return her womb to normal so that she may try again to get pregnant in the fulness of time.
There is always a very small possibility of perforation of the uterus and/or damage to the uterus during this procedure. Many women are rendered sterile after an abortion is performed.
I believe that most women, in their heart of hearts, know that life is sacred.
Having felt the flutter of the beginnings of new life within my own body I know the intense bonding which happens automatically between mother and her own as yet to be born baby.
I have four grown daughters. They knew that regardless of circumstance, ALL BABIES ARE WELCOME IN THIS FAMILY".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top