Scientific Review of 72 Studies, Biological Evidence Supports Abortion-Breast Cancer Link

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Sorry for the hijack. I’ll finish this here:

[quote]nsimmons wrote:

You are conflating deductive logic, with inference. Scientific models are just that, models. The are not an axiomatic algorithm.

If i throw a ball I can reasonably infer that the ball will fall. This inference does not follow from any premise, such as what goes up must come down. There may be a situation where the ball does not fall down. It is not a logical truth that the ball must fall.

[/quote]

Reasonable inference itself relies upon rationality. The correct response should be as follows:

The statement: If rationality is not the correct means of arriving at truth then an irrational argument can be used to arrive at truth.

^^The above premise itself relies upon a rational argument.

Further, if an irrational argument can be used to arrive at truth then an irrational argument can be used in support of rationality.

For example: the fact that bananas are surfboards proves that rationality is the means of arriving at truth.[/quote]

Binary boolean logic can not be applied to the physical world, especially on the quantum level, which is only a few orders of magnitude smaller than the genes we are supposed to be discussing.

The physical world is not deterministic, it is probabilistic. There is no way to know the truth value to the spin of an electron. You can not predict a wave function with 100% certainty, which is not required for such logic to be valid, but is required for such logic to be useful, where I define useful in the colloquial and not academic sense.

I draw a strong distinction between knowing a fact and believing or predicting.
Quantum mechanical effects are established at the gene level as such deduction can not be used in identifying any deterministic causal links.

Believe me, I wish the universe was deterministic but its not.

I get the sense that a lot of people think science is about determining cause and effect, when fundamentally it is not. It is more a description on what is happening, a description of the observations can be postulated, in a theory or law, but the causal agent may never be known, in the full sense of the word.

Newtons law of gravitation allows predictions on bodies in motion, but it doesn’t explain how gravity works. Relativity generalizes the theory to more applications, but it still doesn’t explain the causal agent.

Frankly the causal agent isn’t required to launch satellites, and the causal agents may not need to be known to stop cancer.

22

You guys sure know how to fuck up a discussion.

23

Its worth considering the inherent biases in this report.

*Why was it reported in this journal, and not something respectable?
*I could find 331 articles on this subject; why are only 72 reviewed? Was there selection bias? What was the basis for selection?
*Anyone who reads a Peto analysis (“meta-analysis”) risks wasting his time. How were these 72 studies alike? What were the uniform controls?
*Are there alternative explanations: perhaps well-known risk factors–delayed aged at first live birth, fewer pregnancies–are the real risk factors and “abortion” serves only as a surrogate marker.
*I can find a half-dozen better studies–prospective case-controlled studies which account for known risk factors, and show no effect of abortion on breast cancer. Why would one believe a muddied meta-analysis in a suspect journal over a better constructed and coherently described study? Oh, yes, bias…

24

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Its worth considering the inherent biases in this report.

*Why was it reported in this journal, and not something respectable?
*I could find 331 articles on this subject; why are only 72 reviewed? Was there selection bias? What was the basis for selection?
*Anyone who reads a Peto analysis (“meta-analysis”) risks wasting his time. How were these 72 studies alike? What were the uniform controls?
*Are there alternative explanations: perhaps well-known risk factors–delayed aged at first live birth, fewer pregnancies–are the real risk factors and “abortion” serves only as a surrogate marker.
*I can find a half-dozen better studies–prospective case-controlled studies which account for known risk factors, and show no effect of abortion on breast cancer. Why would one believe a muddied meta-analysis in a suspect journal over a better constructed and coherently described study? Oh, yes, bias…

[/quote]
Bless you. I didn’t have the patience.

25

DrSkeptix - Sounds like your problems with the study needs to be taken up with the authors of the study. Humorous how you want me to defend the study and yet all I did was share information. Can you defend every article you ever read? If you claim that you can, you are lying. You claim to understand and defend ingestion of a synthetic hormone that never, ever breaks down. Simple logic defeats your supposed science.

All rest of the above posters, not one of you addressed anything related to science, logic or even reason. To defend the position of LIFE, one or all three topics can be used. When children throw a tantrum, that is all I heard above ; ) Aragon, your voice sounds just like my eleven month old!! jajajaja jnd - your tantrums are the best!! My toddler makes better sense with her words. Claiming the science is not valid, well that does not work in any way shape or fashion

SM and nsimmons - An off topic discussion does nothing other than pad the posters count of this thread, so no worries = ]

26

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
DrSkeptix - Sounds like your problems with the study needs to be taken up with the authors of the study. Humorous how you want me to defend the study and yet all I did was share information. Can you defend every article you ever read?..[/quote]

No. I criticize every article I read.

My skepticism and critical reading has saved my patients uncounted misery and possibly some lives.
I ask you not to defend the study, but to question it.

About sharing information: when one shares “information” one must expect that it is questioned. I am not criticizing you or your beliefs, but one must expect that much of what one reads may be…shall we say…the inevitable results of a bull’s breakfast.

27

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
DrSkeptix - Sounds like your problems with the study needs to be taken up with the authors of the study. Humorous how you want me to defend the study and yet all I did was share information. Can you defend every article you ever read? If you claim that you can, you are lying. You claim to understand and defend ingestion of a synthetic hormone that never, ever breaks down. Simple logic defeats your supposed science.

All rest of the above posters, not one of you addressed anything related to science, logic or even reason. To defend the position of LIFE, one or all three topics can be used. When children throw a tantrum, that is all I heard above ; ) Aragon, your voice sounds just like my eleven month old!! jajajaja jnd - your tantrums are the best!! My toddler makes better sense with her words. Claiming the science is not valid, well that does not work in any way shape or fashion

SM and nsimmons - An off topic discussion does nothing other than pad the posters count of this thread, so no worries = ][/quote]

I’m pro-life my friend. The problem is you’re poisoning the well with this shit. Just like Rothbardians have poisoned the libertarian well. Take a deep breath, drink some water and then ask yourself if your methods are sound.

28

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Humorous how you want me to defend the study and yet all I did was share information. [/quote]

I’m confused, you didn’t just “share information”. You made a statement about the information first:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Some people think I am off my rocker, yet they are NEVER proven wrong ; ) Here is a study that would make me super scared of the correlation, if I happened to be a woman and supported abortion on demand.
[/quote]

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Can you defend every article you ever read? [/quote]

Defending information you shared with an obvious purpose and defending every article you’ve ever read are two entirely different things.

29

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:

All rest of the above posters, not one of you addressed anything related to science, logic or even reason.[/quote]

Considering that I wrote hundreds of words on the exact topics of, science, logic or reason my only conclusion is that you are illiterate. If this thread has any coherence that doesn’t include sky fairies, I may respond in depth this weekend, but I am rather busy this week with SCIENCE. Though I don’t see a reason since for a laymen, such as yourself, the argument refuting your garbage has been made. There is no point in going into detail, because frankly, you can’t and won’t understand.

30

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
You guys sure know how to fuck up a discussion.[/quote]

May the flying spaghetti monster bless you as you continue to fight in politics and world issues. I must resist staying out of here.

31

The point is many women would prefer the risk of breast cancer to a baby that they don’t want.

That is why when abortion was illegal, many women chose to have illegal abortion procedures that they knew full well might permanently damage or kill them.

32

[quote]squatbenchhench wrote:
The point is many women would prefer the risk of breast cancer to a baby that they don’t want.
[/quote]

That is not the point at all. The point is that kneedragger79 is spreading lies about the link between abortion and breast cancer when there is no such causal link.

jnd

33

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
DrSkeptix - Sounds like your problems with the study needs to be taken up with the authors of the study. Humorous how you want me to defend the study and yet all I did was share information. Can you defend every article you ever read? If you claim that you can, you are lying. You claim to understand and defend ingestion of a synthetic hormone that never, ever breaks down. Simple logic defeats your supposed science.

All rest of the above posters, not one of you addressed anything related to science, logic or even reason. To defend the position of LIFE, one or all three topics can be used. When children throw a tantrum, that is all I heard above ; ) Aragon, your voice sounds just like my eleven month old!! jajajaja jnd - your tantrums are the best!! My toddler makes better sense with her words. Claiming the science is not valid, well that does not work in any way shape or fashion

SM and nsimmons - An off topic discussion does nothing other than pad the posters count of this thread, so no worries = ][/quote]

If you think that’s a tantrum you have the best behaved kids on the planet. That wasn’t even a good rant, not even a good witticism.

The reason I didn’t bother to reply directly is the same reason I didn’t bother to reply to your fairly recent resurrection post and quotation of me in the “pro-LIFE” contraception thread–1) you aren’t thinking critically and aren’t open to critical analysis by people who work in science so why I should bother adding my voice–again–to those who have already added theirs including the good doctor is beyond me 2) there wasn’t a question in there directed at me anyway, just a bunch of misplaced statements. Besides, my life has been pretty busy just like you protest yours has been for a while now.

It is the responsibility of EVERYONE to filter, critique, and critically analyze everything they read. That is the opposite of simply accepting a meta-study and then telling others they should take up their criticisms with the authors and not you because “simple logic”.

Oh, and these synthetic hormones are in fact broken down by the body, just like all synthetic drugs, and eventually excreted in urine. They do not stay in the body forever and that is a gross misunderstanding of basic physiology.

34

To be fair, in a fairly broad sense, women would probably be at a very slightly higher risk of breast cancer if they have an abortion or early miscarriage than if they were to not have one simply because they are increasing their exposure to estrogen. With that said, the abortion or miscarriage does not increase their risk, they merely do not get the full effect of the reduction that they would have gotten by carrying the baby to full term. Bonus points if they were to nurse the child. Any length of time that a woman’s body is deprived of estrogen decreases her risk of breast cancer which is why early onset menstruation, late onset menopause, late age at first pregnancy, and never having children are really the only reproductive factors that actually increase a woman’s chance of developing breast cancer.

35

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
To be fair, in a fairly broad sense, women would probably be at a very slightly higher risk of breast cancer if they have an abortion or early miscarriage than if they were to not have one simply because they are increasing their exposure to estrogen. With that said, the abortion or miscarriage does not increase their risk, they merely do not get the full effect of the reduction that they would have gotten by carrying the baby to full term. Bonus points if they were to nurse the child. Any length of time that a woman’s body is deprived of estrogen decreases her risk of breast cancer which is why early onset menstruation, late onset menopause, late age at first pregnancy, and never having children are really the only reproductive factors that actually increase a woman’s chance of developing breast cancer.[/quote]

Your sentence 1 and 2 directly contradict each other.

This is easy:

You are either wrong (like kneedragger79 and his intellectually-challenged ilk) and believe that abortion causes breast cancer, or you are correct (everyone else in the world who can read and comprehend basic statistical information) and understand that abortion does NOT cause breast cancer.

I am not sure that I see any middle ground here. This is not opinion, this is what the reputable scientific literature shows.

jnd

36

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
To be fair, in a fairly broad sense, women would probably be at a very slightly higher risk of breast cancer if they have an abortion or early miscarriage than if they were to not have one simply because they are increasing their exposure to estrogen. With that said, the abortion or miscarriage does not increase their risk, they merely do not get the full effect of the reduction that they would have gotten by carrying the baby to full term. Bonus points if they were to nurse the child. Any length of time that a woman’s body is deprived of estrogen decreases her risk of breast cancer which is why early onset menstruation, late onset menopause, late age at first pregnancy, and never having children are really the only reproductive factors that actually increase a woman’s chance of developing breast cancer.[/quote]

Your sentence 1 and 2 directly contradict each other.

This is easy:

You are either wrong (like kneedragger79 and his intellectually-challenged ilk) and believe that abortion causes breast cancer, or you are correct (everyone else in the world who can read and comprehend basic statistical information) and understand that abortion does NOT cause breast cancer.

I am not sure that I see any middle ground here. This is not opinion, this is what the reputable scientific literature shows.

jnd[/quote]

Know sentence 1 and 2 do not contradict one another. IF she carried the pregnancy to term she would reduce her chance of having breast cancer, simply because cumulative time spent pregnant and nursing in a women’s wife adds up to a decreased risk of pregnancy. There are no effects from not carrying it to term doesn’t increase it, but if she had she could have reduced it.

Woman A- 50% chance of breast cancer- Carries baby to term and nurses- 5% reduction in risk resulting in 45% chance of having breast cancer.

Same Woman A- 50% chance of breast cancer- Early pregnancy termination- 0% reduction in risk resulting in a 50% chance of having breast cancer.

So, terminating early doesn’t increase your odds but you could decrease them if you did. Logically, you will have a slightly higher chance of breast cancer if you terminate early than if you don’t.

It is not quite so cut and dry in reality but I have fairly well illustrated my point.

37

Pregnancy is EASY to avoid, please give women some credit.

[quote]squatbenchhench wrote:
The point is many women would prefer the risk of breast cancer to a baby that they don’t want.

That is why when abortion was illegal, many women chose to have illegal abortion procedures that they knew full well might permanently damage or kill them. [/quote]

38

Science is always changing and always finds new links that were never there before. Has smoking always been seen as harmful?

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]squatbenchhench wrote:
The point is many women would prefer the risk of breast cancer to a baby that they don’t want.
[/quote]

That is not the point at all. The point is that kneedragger79 is spreading lies about the link between abortion and breast cancer when there is no such causal link.

jnd[/quote]

39

The synthetic hormones of women break down so slowly that the progesterone from birth control be found in the mountains from Alaska all the way down to Chile. Natural hormones have a very short half life. Even guys who juice often have shrunken testicles because their bodies don’t see a need for a natural cyclic hormone. The body will always excrete hormones, afterwards the hormones should never remain the same. Especially for longer periods of time.

40

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
The synthetic hormones of women break down so slowly that the progesterone from birth control be found in the mountains from Alaska all the way down to Chile. Natural hormones have a very short half life. Even guys who juice often have shrunken testicles because their bodies don’t see a need for a natural cyclic hormone. The body will always excrete hormones, afterwards the hormones should never remain the same. Especially for longer periods of time.

[/quote]

You have almost no idea what you are talking about. If it were possible, it seems as if you actually have a negative amount of knowledge. You sound like some damn rabid anti-vaccination or organic vegan herbalist hippie in your science talk. There are so many things wrong with your post I don’t even know where to start. For one, almost everything you said about “hormones” above can be applied to other NON hormonal pharmaceuticals to treat random diseases or illnesses.