Abortion as economic stimulus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually I believe funding is for BOTH contraception and abortion; organizations such as Planned Parenthood perform abortions and provide contraceptives.

This is an attempt IMHO to add to the stimulus bill funding for medical procedures (abortion) that many are morally opposed to; cleaver parliamentary move for sure as anyone who opposed the stimulus because of the abortion funding will be painted as opposing the stimulus by their political opponents. I can admire the strategy here, but lets not be so naive to think this is not abortion funding.

Planned Parenthood has received Federal money all through the Bush years. This is nothing new.

I think I read somewhere that Susan Komen Foundation also contributes. Which is ironic b/c some studies show that abortions can increase the chance of breast cancer later on in life.

[Anonymous]

PP, please post your study on the link between abortions and breast cancer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, please post your study on the link between abortions and breast cancer.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/apr/24/science/sci-abortion24

No abortion link to breast cancer, large study finds

By Thomas H. Maugh II
April 24, 2007 in print edition A-11

An abortion or a miscarriage does not increase a woman’s risk of breast cancer, according to results released Monday from a decade-long study of more than 100,000 women.

The findings are the latest, and perhaps most convincing, in a series of studies that have discredited a concern cited by antiabortion activists to dissuade women from having the procedure.

“It’s important for women to have the facts,” said Karin B. Michels of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. Michels is lead author of the study.

She said her group’s study was “very much in line” with a 2003 expert panel convened by the National Cancer Institute that concluded no evidence supported a link between abortion and breast cancer. The institute funded Michels’ study as well.

Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, took issue with the findings. Her group uses the purported link as an argument against abortion.

“Clearly [the cancer institute] must suspect a link, or else they know that a link really exists,” Malec said. “Why else would they continue to pay for these studies?”

Texas, Minnesota and Mississippi require physicians to warn women seeking an abortion about the supposed cancer risk. Several other states considered similar laws but rejected them in light of the 2003 consensus report.

The new results, reported in the Archives of Internal Medicine, are from an arm of the Nurses’ Health Study that involved 105,716 women.

Beginning in 1993, Michels and her colleagues biennially questioned the women – who were ages 29 to 46 in 1993 – about abortions, miscarriages and breast cancer.

They found that through 2003, a total of 16,118 had had at least one induced abortion and 21,753 had had at least one spontaneous abortion (miscarriage). The team found 1,458 new cases of breast cancer – an incidence that was the same among women who had had an abortion (induced or spontaneous) and those who had not.

The design of the study, Michels said, was much more reliable than previous studies, which started with women who’d had breast cancer and asked them if they had undergone an abortion. Such studies introduce “recall bias,” she said, because women with breast cancer are more likely to acknowledge an abortion, thinking it might be related to their condition.

“There will always be some underreporting of abortion [among healthy women] because it is such a sensitive issue,” she said.

Malec criticized the design of the study, which allowed reports of abortions that had occurred through 2003. Malec said that would tend to “dilute” cancer links because cancer in those women would not have had time to develop. “That’s like asking, ‘If you smoke cigarettes today, would you develop lung cancer tomorrow?’ ” she said.

Michels said 90% of the abortions and miscarriages reported in the study occurred before 1993.

[Anonymous]

1453 poster here:

The paper that I read last year was this (PDF): www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf It wast the one that first came to mind when I posted my comment.

It's a paper called: The Abortion-Breast Cancer Link: How Politics Trumped Science.

[Anonymous]

I know some people who very much oppose abortion in every way. They are very religious, very judgemental and very shouvinistic. It is more about suppressing the woman than anything else.

Shame shame on the woman, hush hush for the man.

Yes, they do want to stone the girl.
Surprisingly, this is a crime that women are quilty of, even though the menfolk know there is no way the woman will cope all alone on her own.

They do not support things like better child support legislation etc etc, or rights for uninsured pregnant women, but they do support homes for unmarried mothers, as long as the baby is given up in return for upkeep

[Anonymous]

Obesity is linked to an increase incidence of breast cancer. Let's work on that one first, which affects 1/3 of our population, before we get into the abortion/bc link.

[Anonymous]

Don't worry, Pelosi made provisions for STD education/prevention as part of the stimulus bill...page 147 if anyone is reading.

[Anonymous]

abortion is not linked to breast cancer. not having children is (think of sam on sex and the city). maybe some religious nut got confused.

[Anonymous]

I have been thinking about these posts for days and have to comment:

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing wrong with having an abortion. Truly, I see it as another method of birth control, albeit the most inconvenient, costly, and uncomfortable one.

Life is so precious to these assholes until it is born. Then it's a piece of shit.

I hate anti-abortionists. I really hate them.

And more from this compassionate, open-hearted poster:

Anonymous wrote:The 3-week fetus should not, in my view, even have the same rights as dogs. Maybe cats.

I will never understand the use of such highly charged rhetoric when engaging in such a polarized debate as this. Dialogue like that may resonate with your base, but it will only incense the opposition as it did me. You will never change hearts and minds with reasoning like that.

According to the above poster, I am an asshole. I guess you will hate me because I respect life from natural conception to natural death and as such am ardently pro-life, anti-death penalty, anti-euthanasia, and anti-torture. I may whole heartedly disagree with you and really hate your position, but I will never hate you personally, but hate is not a value I embrace. I know most of you pro-choicers are also anti-death penalty and anti-torture too. You can all rally behind the convicted child rapist or serial killer on death row or the convicted terrorist or even the animal destined to become a fur coat, but not innocent unborn humans. It makes no sense to me.

Anonymous wrote:I know some people who very much oppose abortion in every way. They are very religious, very judgemental and very shouvinistic. It is more about suppressing the woman than anything else.

(editorial comment - spell check is a great thing that is not just reserved for the religious right!)

Yes, I am religious. Am I chauvinistic? Hardly. I am college educated woman who left a professional career to raise my children. I support the Equal Pay Act and all forms of social legislation that will benefit disadvantaged children and mothers. I have a daughter and want her to have ever opportunity available to her. I am a pro-life feminist. The pro-choice agenda is always synonymous with the feminist mantle, but I don't understand how the ability to choose to murder a baby makes you more of a feminist or more of a woman. Quite honestly, I think it makes you less of a woman.

My husband is adopted as are his brother and 2 sisters. Their biological mothers could have all made a different choice when faced with their unplanned pregnancies. I, for one, am most thankful these courageous women choose life as is my husband, his adoptive parents, our children, his siblings, their families and countless others who's lives these 4 individuals touch.

Each life has such potential. I don't know how someone can claim to know when one is expendable. Take the example of a minority child who's future is a broken home. He will be abandoned by his father and his single mother will struggle to raise him. Despite these hardships, he becomes the first African-American President.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I am religious. Am I chauvinistic? Hardly. I am college educated woman who left a professional career to raise my children. I support the Equal Pay Act and all forms of social legislation that will benefit disadvantaged children and mothers. I have a daughter and want her to have ever opportunity available to her. I am a pro-life feminist. The pro-choice agenda is always synonymous with the feminist mantle, but I don't understand how the ability to choose to murder a baby makes you more of a feminist or more of a woman. Quite honestly, I think it makes you less of a woman.

you are religious and holier than thou and judgemental
Oh, you support equal pay so you are a saint

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:you are religious and holier than thou and judgemental
Oh, you support equal pay so you are a saint

Here is a thought - when you make a post try to actually have something to say. And just to be judgmental, it is misspelled in your post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
My husband is adopted as are his brother and 2 sisters. Their biological mothers could have all made a different choice when faced with their unplanned pregnancies.

Oh you cannot honestly be that ignorant. Are we talking your husbands family? Back in the day, 60's, 70's, women did not have a choice. What were their options?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:you are religious and holier than thou and judgemental
Oh, you support equal pay so you are a saint

Here is a thought - when you make a post try to actually have something to say. And just to be judgmental, it is misspelled in your post.

I think Ms. Holier-Than-Thou needs a dictionary.

"Judgment" and "judgement" are both correct. Hence, "judgmental" and "judgemental" are also both correct.

You look pretty fucking stupid telling someone they have misspelled a word that they have not even misspelled.

Then again, you're religious and anit-abortion. What else should we expect?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
My husband is adopted as are his brother and 2 sisters. Their biological mothers could have all made a different choice when faced with their unplanned pregnancies.

Oh you cannot honestly be that ignorant. Are we talking your husbands family? Back in the day, 60's, 70's, women did not have a choice. What were their options?

Not true. I was adopted and born in 1975. My birthmother could've aborted me. You are the one who sounds ignorant. Do you remember what year Roe v. Wade was passed? I think the PP has an excellent point. I thank my birthmother all the time for not aborting me. My adoptive parents and their entire family are blessed with me and my brother (who was adopted, as well) and all of our children. If our birthmothers had chosen to kill us... nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:you are religious and holier than thou and judgemental
Oh, you support equal pay so you are a saint

Here is a thought - when you make a post try to actually have something to say. And just to be judgmental, it is misspelled in your post.

I think Ms. Holier-Than-Thou needs a dictionary.

"Judgment" and "judgement" are both correct. Hence, "judgmental" and "judgemental" are also both correct.

You look pretty fucking stupid telling someone they have misspelled a word that they have not even misspelled.

Then again, you're religious and anit-abortion. What else should we expect?

Civility please - I was taught to express myself without the use of profanity and on the whole it is a good thing! I was also taught that you can disagree with or dislike the message or deed without being disagreeable to the messenger.

Religious and pro-life does not equal stupid. By your standards, the Pope is stupid too, and there are plenty of people who would dispute you. Abortion rights is a highly charged subject, and people on both sides if the argument have deeply held beliefs and convictions. Name calling is totally non-constructive.