Abortion causes cancer

It's amazing how some people never let the truth get in the way of political correctness. The abortion-breast-cancer link is a classic example.

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that women who have abortions are at much much higher risk of developing breast cancer. But you won't hear that from leading cancer prevention organizations or from the government. The abortion lobby is all-powerful in Canada, didn't you know?

For those of us who truly care for women's well-being, it is imperative that women be informed of this danger. A web site called abortionbreastcancer.ca has been setup specifically for this purpose. I encourage you to read the results of the research yourself. It's presented in easy to understand language. It could save your life. It could save your spouse's life.

Two key quotes from the site:

"Since 1957, a total of 70 studies worldwide have been published with specific data on induced abortion and breast cancer. Of these, approximately 80% have provided evidence linking induced abortion to the later development of breast cancer."

"A November 1994 study by Dr. Janet Daling found that overall, women who abort their first pregnancy increase their chance of developing breast cancer by 50 per cent."

Now the pro-choice people will tell you that this is fear mongering. That's nonsense. It's a sure sign that you've made a good point when the opposition has nothing to reply except that you're fear mongering.

Some more sophisticated pro-choicers will say that the evidence is mixed. They'll quote from the 20% of the studies that didn't find a link between abortion and breast cancer, conveniently ignoring the 80% of studies that did find a link. It only takes common sense to know that you should follow the preponderance of the evidence.

Here's a quick science lesson for you. When researchers say that they "don't find a link", that is not the same as concluding that there is no link. I've done plenty of empirical research and I know how this works. In technical jargon, we call it "not rejecting the null hypothesis". Any competent researcher should know that if their study doesn't reject the null hypothesis, that does not confirm that the null hypothesis is true. It simply means that there wasn't enough evidence in their specific set of data to reject it. That's not the same thing as concluding that no link exists between abortion and breast cancer. It is possible that the link is not apparent in that specific data set due to random sampling issues or outright sampling bias (conscious or not). However, if a study concludes that there is a link ("the null hypothesis is rejected") then there is strong statistical evidence that there truly exists a link between abortion and breast cancer.

Consider this analogy. An avalanche buries part of a mountain-side town. The police arrives on the scene and begins to look for survivers under the snow. After 5 hours of searching, one team returns to headquarters and says "I didn't find anybody". Does that necessarily mean that there are no survivors? No. It simply means that they couldn't find any survivors in the area of snow that they searched. A couple of hours later, another team comes back saying "We found 3 survivors!" Does this prove that there were survivors under the snow? Yes it does, without a doubt.The truth is, militant pro-choicers don't really care about women's well-being. Read more here. They just want more abortions, either for ideological reasons or because they make millions of dollars of profits off of it.

If they really cared about women, they would inform them of all the risks.

Take care.