the Pill causes Breast Cancer (9 views) Subscribe   
  From:  David (DavidABrown)    5/2/2001 9:13 pm  
To:  ALL   (1 of 84)  
 
  23.1  
 
Birth Control Pill and its link to breast Cancer in women 
The following is a summary from Christian Radio talk show host Rich Agazine KBRT L.A. CA. May 02, 01 with guest (?), Author of Breast cancer and its link to abortion and the pill. 

This radio show had several good comments about a topic that is being suppressed by the medical community, the topic of the effects of abortion and the synthetic birth control pill on women. After a few brief comments Ill provide Links to the Information: 

A womans body is Complex and divinely Created by God. The cell structure and cell division that takes place in a woman is suited for childbirth, particularly in the breast. Once a woman becomes pregnant the body prepares to take care of the child, especially the breasts. If the pregnancy is terminated the body does not exactly return to the original condition prior to the pregnancy. The cells in the breast become more vulnerable to toxins. The birth control Pill happens to be just such a toxin, increasing the likelihood of breast cancer 200%. 

The Pill is a synthetic hormone, like all synthetic hormones it causes side effects. The pill is designed to kill certain bodily reproductive functions this can be noticed by reduced acne, as the pill kills acne. The same pill however is destructive to the liver, breasts and other vital organs of the woman. Especially when combined with other chemicals such as smoking, drinking, nitrates in foods, fast foods, and diet sodas. 

Solutions: 
Natural cycle birth control, where the husband and wife work together and abstain from intimacy during fertile times. This program helps relieve some of the responsibility from the woman and her body and shares the responsibility with the man. Also men that are abstinent during the fertile times, are men that are more sexually disciplined and not as susceptible to having an affair or to getting involved in pornography. 

It has been found that women who eat Whole Grains in their diets and add a Flax supplement have a better functioning body. Flax the grain, in flour or powder form, seems to be an Incredible nutrient for the Hormonal functioning of a womans body. 

Proverbs 31:13 She seeketh wool, and flax,.. 

Resources: 
Info: www.AbortionBreastCancer.com 
Survey Form: www.OperationOutcry.com 
Atty info: www.JohnKindley.com 
Book Order Info: 1-800-307-7685 
General Info: 714-963-4752 
Any of these resources will be glad to assist you!~ 

A note to the men: 
Men lets take the wives and daughters by the hand and assist them in facilitating the needs of their body. The pill seems to be an easy quick convenient solution to an embarrassing situation but in the long run of a lifetime of health and happiness the pill and other synthetic birth control is not an option. As men this is another area we can have a partnership with the women we love most. 

God Bless You, 
David A. Brown 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  kindheart   5/3/2001 11:10 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (2 of 84)  
 
  23.2 in reply to 23.1  
 
To date, of the 20 case-control studies published in English, 18 have shown that long-term use of oral contraception protects against ovarian cancer.
The use of oral contraception has been associated with a lowered risk of endometrial cancer.

A lack of agreement on existing risk factors frustrates the prevention of breast cancer. One meta-analysis combined the results of 54 small studies to research outcomes in a large group of women using oral contraception (Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors on Breast Cancer 1996). As a result of this statistical methodology, the authors were able to obtain data on 53,297 women who used oral contraception versus 100,239 women in a control group not using it. The relative risk of developing breast cancer in this report was 1.07. Although the increase in risk was small, it was statistically significant because of the number of women studied. 

The above excerpts come from Oral Contraception and Cancer






 

Every day is so precious. We have no time to waste. Some days may bring pain, but we always have a choice between misery and joy. The secret is to live one day at a time and to make the right choices as you go along.
Barbara Johnson -- Stick a Geranium in Your Hat and Be Happy. 

True religion is the life we lead, not the creed we profess.
-- Louis Nizer

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    5/4/2001 8:04 am  
To:  kindheart   (3 of 84)  
 
  23.3 in reply to 23.2  
 
It always amazes me how only Atheists are experts. 
The fastest way to lose a teaching position, or research aid, is to profess Christianity, Creationism (vs. evolution), or to be Pro-Life. The teaching institutions and research centers are Rigged towards a disposition of abortion this is not information and science it is politics and it is the religion of Self. 

Most Health clinics and institutions are more concerned about making money than about providing true health care. Birth Control and Abortion are Big money and big business. Clinics are not about to promote the Morally acceptable and Safer Abstinence programs because there is no prophet to be made from abstinence. Clinics have a vested interest in selling Birth Control, the only solution to them is birth control and therefore they find and Publish according to their cause. 

I purposely posted the Breast Cancer information because it comes from Christian sources. 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    5/4/2001 11:38 pm  
To:  ALL   (4 of 84)  
 
  23.4 in reply to 23.1  
 
This post is Not intended to be a scare tactic. It is More information given to people who rely on the strengh of Jesus, to have the strength to talk about these issues with one other and with their doctors. 
Health concerns as well as every concern, is a concern to be taken directly, through prayer, to our Father in Heaven. 

God Bless You, 
your brother in Jesus, 
David 







David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Peg (ztagrl)   5/14/2001 10:18 am  
To:  ALL   (5 of 84)  
 
  23.5 in reply to 23.1  
 
I found this forum through the promo for this thread. I'm just curious as to what your feelings are towards the natural method of birth control that was mentioned in the post. As protestants, birth control seems to be ok. However, from a Catholic point of view, it has always been taboo. 
I've just recently switched from chemical birth control to the Natural Family Planning method of achieving/avoiding pregnancy. I, as a protestant, hope that this method of 'birth control' (if it can be called that) takes off in the protestant community as well!




 
Our Wedding Album
Visit Christian Couples' Wedding Guide
Visit Oklahoma Weddings 
Visit Christian Women 
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  kindheart   5/14/2001 10:46 am  
To:  Peg (ztagrl)   (6 of 84)  
 
  23.6 in reply to 23.5  
 
Everyone has to make their own choice in this matter and find what works for them but if you're trying to avoid pregnancy that's probably not the most effective way. I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination. This is just my opinion. 
God bless ya! 






 

Every day is so precious. We have no time to waste. Some days may bring pain, but we always have a choice between misery and joy. The secret is to live one day at a time and to make the right choices as you go along.
Barbara Johnson -- Stick a Geranium in Your Hat and Be Happy. 

True religion is the life we lead, not the creed we profess.
-- Louis Nizer

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Peg (ztagrl)   5/14/2001 10:55 am  
To:  kindheart   (7 of 84)  
 
  23.7 in reply to 23.6  
 
Actually, I'm not sure how much you know about the method, but when used correctly, it's just as (if not more so) effective than the pill! 
It has gotten a bad rap over the years because it is often compared to the rhythm method. What we are practicing is NOT the rhythm method. 

It does require self-control and restraint (much more so on my husbands end, I can tell you for sure!), but as a protestant, my husband and I do not think that barrier methods of birth control are immoral, so we usually use barrier methods during the fertile time, rather than abstaining. 

I can tell you that we do not use this method because chemical birth control may have been linked to breast cancer. We use this method because chemical birth control is an abortifacient. Yep, that's right. It can and does cause abortions when it's first function to prevent fertilization fails. One of the functions of birth control is to make the uterine lining unable to carry a fertilized egg. Therefore, if the primary function of preventing the egg to be fertilized fails, the back up function of preventing implantation kicks in. In other words, it aborts the baby. 

Anyhow, if anyone would like more information, I'd be happy to point you in the right direction!




 
Our Wedding Album
Visit Christian Couples' Wedding Guide
Visit Oklahoma Weddings 
Visit Christian Women 
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   5/14/2001 1:32 pm  
To:  Peg (ztagrl)   (8 of 84)  
 
  23.8 in reply to 23.5  
 
Brooke (ZTAGRL) wrote:
I found this forum through the promo for this thread. I'm just curious as to what your feelings are towards the natural method of birth control that was mentioned in the post.
  There's a name for women who depend on this so-called natural method of birth-control:  Mommy



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Peg (ztagrl)   5/14/2001 1:36 pm  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (9 of 84)  
 
  23.9 in reply to 23.8  
 
Ha Ha! Yeah, I've heard that joke before. But, honestly, I know many users of this method that have avoided pregnancy for many years. It CAN work when used correctly!



 
Our Wedding Album
Visit Christian Couples' Wedding Guide
Visit Oklahoma Weddings 
Visit Christian Women 
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Peg (ztagrl)   5/14/2001 1:41 pm  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (10 of 84)  
 
  23.10 in reply to 23.8  
 
Besides that, I'd rather be a mommy than take a chance and abort a baby :)



 
Our Wedding Album
Visit Christian Couples' Wedding Guide
Visit Oklahoma Weddings 
Visit Christian Women 
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    5/15/2001 9:24 am  
To:  Peg (ztagrl)   (11 of 84)  
 
  23.11 in reply to 23.5  
 
Thank you for pointing out that the Natural Cycle Birth Control that is being advocated here is Not the Rhythm Method. 
Please feel free to post any information or links that you have found helpful. You might want to start a new string or post in this string and start a new one, i.e. Christian birth control Options. To post a link to another web site simply type the site URL including the www and it automatically becomes a link. www.DrDino.com is now a link to a web site about how God created the Universe. 

Thank you for bringing solutions to this forum. This forum is also intended to be a resource center. 

I first heard about NCBC a couple of years ago, it is a great program I thought it would catch on throughout the Christian community. But I have heard virtually nothing about it so when the radio show mentioned it I took notes to make a post with. I posted the Breast Cancer article on several forums Christian and non-Christian. 

I have actually been surprised by the amount of resistance to any form of birth control that does not include medication. Resistance from both Christians and non-Christians. 

Im not sure of the exact procedures but I know that body temperature and several other factors determine the cycle, and that it is a very reliable practice. People tend to forget that the Pill and other forms of medical birth control are far from full proof. 

It is also Important to note that any changes in medication (and the pill is medication) need to be made in conjunction with Medical Doctor supervision. Taking the pill has effects on the human body and when the pill is no longer taken there can also be some hormonal effects to the body. Flax seed Oil may help with this. 

I applaud anyone who is Taking Responsibility for their body and their actions. The NCBC is a Non-Abortive form of birth control and I think that the people who practice it can go to sleep at night feeling good about their decision (* it may be the only humane form of birth control). 

I encourage the Church to look into this natural opinion and to examine it, also to talk about it and Most important to Pray about it. Remember everyone has an Opinion but Only Gods opinion matters. 






David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Neetje   5/16/2001 5:15 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (12 of 84)  
 
  23.12 in reply to 23.1  
 
David and others, 
Brooke is right on about the bcp causing abortions. To read the technicalities of how it works, check out this link: 
http://www.epm.org/bcp5400.html 

Dr. James Kennedy also had a radio program this week about this very topic. You can "hear" the program from the Coral Ridge Ministries website. It featured Mercedes Wilson from Family of the Americas and Dr. Hilgers, an OB doctor.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    5/16/2001 6:33 pm  
To:  Neetje   (13 of 84)  
 
  23.13 in reply to 23.12  
 
Thanks for the Confirmation and the Info. 
I also really like Dr. James Kennedy. I was listening to him today on KBRT AM 740 from Los Angeles and he had a Mothers day Sermon about how influential Mothers are in the spiritual lives of their children. It was great! 

Here is his web site. 

www.CoralRidge.org 

Thanks Again, 
God Bless You, 
David 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    5/22/2001 9:20 am  
To:  ALL   (14 of 84)  
 
  23.14 in reply to 23.1  
 
Subject: Why the Silence About Abortion and Breast Cancer 
Source: Chicago Tribune; May 21, 2001 
Why the Silence About Abortion and Breast Cancer 
by Dennis Byrne 

[Pro-Life Infonet Note: Dennis Byrne is a Chicago-area writer and public 
affairs consultant.] 

How long will this nation sit by as a powerful, well-funded industry 
continues to expose women to the No. 1 preventable risk of breast cancer? 

How long will the industry's political flunkies, who receive millions in 
campaign funds from this special interest, be allowed to turn a blind eye 
to a danger that kills thousands of women every year? 

How long will a biased media keep silent in the face of a hazard that 
directly imperils more than 1 million women a year? 

No, I'm not talking about the chemical industry, daily poisoning the 
environment with its toxins. Nor the producers of fatty food or alcohol, 
also factors suspected of increasing breast cancer. 

The industry I'm talking about is the abortion business--consisting of 
abortion "providers," their clinics, ideological supporters, grant-giving 
foundations and the rest of the political power structure that refuses to 
even admit that a scientific debate, let along scientific evidence, exists 
about the dangers of induced abortions. They--despite their claims of 
superior benevolence and compassion--are threatening thousands of women's 
lives with an unspeakably painful disease. 

Yet in the month of May, a time of renewal, promise, new life and marches 
throughout the country against breast cancer, millions of women are being 
deceived about this risk, or denied the knowledge of important studies. 

Twenty-seven out of 34 independent studies conducted throughout the world 
(including 13 out of 14 conducted in the United States) have linked 
abortion and breast cancer. Seventeen of these studies show a 
statistically significant relationship. Five show more than a two-fold 
elevation of risk. In turn, the abortion industry says all those studies 
are trumped by one study, whose methodology, critics say, is seriously 
flawed. 

The biological hypothesis is that during pregnancy, a woman's breasts 
begin developing a hormone that causes cells--both normal and 
pre-cancerous--to multiply dramatically. If the pregnancy is carried to 
term, those undifferentiated cells are shaped into milk ducts and a 
naturally occurring process shuts off the rapid cell multiplication. An 
induced abortion leaves a women with more undifferentiated cells, and so, 
more cancer-vulnerable cells. 

When I first wrote about this issue in 1997, the scorn and name-calling 
flowed in. Anti-choice fanatic. Ignorant bozo. Misogynist. Since then, 
much has happened. The United Kingdom's Royal College of Obstetricians and 
Gynecologists became the first medical organization to warn its abortion 
practitioners that the abortion-breast cancer link "could not be 
disregarded." It said that the methodology of the principal ABC 
(abortion-breast cancer) researcher, Joel Brind, was sound. 

John Kindley, an attorney, warned in a 1999 Wisconsin Law Review article 
that physicians who do not inform their patients of the ABC link expose 
themselves to medical malpractice suits. He concluded that about 1 out of 
100 women who have had an induced abortion die from breast cancer 
attributable to the abortion. 

The American Cancer Society Web page lists induced abortions (along with 
pesticides, chemical exposures, weight gain and other factors) among 
elements that may be related to breast cancer, and that the relationship 
is being studied. 

Earlier, Dr. Janet Darling and colleagues at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer 
Research Center, in a study commissioned by the National Cancer Institute, 
found that "among women who had been pregnant at least once, the risk of 
breast cancer in those who had . . . an induced abortion was 50 percent 
higher than among other women." The risk of breast cancer for women under 
18 or over 29 who had induced abortions was more than twofold. Women who 
abort and have a family history of breast cancer increase their risk 80 
percent. The increased risk of women under 18 with that family history 
was incalculably high. 

Being pro-choice didn't shield Darling from the usual attacks. She fought 
back. "If politics gets involved in science," she then told the Los 
Angeles Daily News, "it will really hold back the progress that we make. I 
have three sisters with breast cancer, and I resent people messing with 
the 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." 

Yet the Web site of the Y-ME National Breast Cancer Organization, sponsor 
of many marches, fails to mention even the possibility of the ABC 
connection in its list of risk factors. Not even under its list of fuzzy, 
not "clear-cut" factors. Not even the existence of a scientific debate 
over induced abortion is worth a mention. 

As if women had no right to know. 

If you want to know more, look in on the Web page of the Palos 
Heights-based Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer 
www.AbortionBreastCancer.com You may not agree with everything there 
but at least you'll be respected for your intellectual ability to make an 
informed choice. 

-- 
For more information on the link between abortion and breast cancer, see 
the Abortion section of www.prolifeinfo.org 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  snickerdoodle (ADNIK)   5/23/2001 12:24 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (15 of 84)  
 
  23.15 in reply to 23.14  
 
I'm kind of lurking today...hope you don't mind. Just for the record, I am anti abortion...but I have a question for you. 
You mentioned that having abortions increases your chance of cancer cells...is this induced abortions or spontaneous (as in miscarriages)? If it is just the induced ones, what makes it so? Do you have any resources showing statistics between breast cancer in woman with induced abortions and miscarriages? thanks! 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    5/23/2001 12:51 pm  
To:  snickerdoodle (ADNIK)   (16 of 84)  
 
  23.16 in reply to 23.15  
 
Thanks for stopping by and asking such a good question. 
As I understand it, a womans body Benefits from having a baby. There is something about the cycle of pregnancy-birth-breast feeding, that is very beneficial to the woman. There are many factors involved, for instance childbirth at a younger age is more beneficial in cancer prevention than to the woman at a later age. 

Im not sure about the statistics of a natural miscarriage, the womans body in a natural miscarriage my not be in the cycle that a womans body was in that had an abortion. The two links mentioned in the above post by me should give info on Exactly this topic, also you should be able to e-mail them. 

Right now there are all kinds of interesting statistics about childbirth, abortion, the pill and the health of women. Unfortunatlly this information is not getting out to the Public and getting the attention it deserves. Women that have had an abortion or have had a miscarriage should be able to continue to manage the health of their body, but with all of this information hidden it decreases the ability to plan and to defend for any future ramifications. 

God Bless You, 
David 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  snickerdoodle (ADNIK)   5/23/2001 12:59 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (17 of 84)  
 
  23.17 in reply to 23.16  
 
Thanks for your quick reply. I will check out those two links and maybe find out more. 
One thing I forgot to bring up was that there isn't much discussion in this particular post about the amount of women taking the pill due to menstrual pain/problems. A good part of the female population take the pill not primarily as a birth control, but as a way to manage other reproductive system problems. 
Just something to add to the equation. 




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 5/23/2001 4:00:47 PM ET by ADNIK 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    5/23/2001 1:30 pm  
To:  snickerdoodle (ADNIK)   (18 of 84)  
 
  23.18 in reply to 23.17  
 
Exactly, 
This is such a complex topic. The pill does have benefits of milder menstruation, reduced acne, and now they are claiming reduced cervix cancer. But then are these benefits coming at a higher cost by the harm of introducing synthetic hormones into the body. 

The pill is easily distributed and has a very high profit margin. So much that the pill has become Big business, every bit as big business as Ford Motor. And they will defend it with all the tenacity that Ford uses to defend the Ford Explorer including blaming everyone and everything but their product. 

I find it very interesting because they tell us men and all athletes to stay away from hormones at all costs. Yet they encourage women to take the Pill a synthetic hormone. A synthetic hormone is an engineered non-natural hormone. Mixing a synthetic hormone with smoking, alcohol, drugs, fast food, you name it and it is Very carcinogenic. 

Im glad that there is interest in this topic, with discussion comes understanding and with understanding comes solutions. We have another string Christian Birth Control that has many solutions and options to the pill. 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    5/25/2001 10:18 am  
To:  ALL   (19 of 84)  
 
  23.19 in reply to 23.1  
 

Illinois Lt. Gov Criticized on Abortion-Breast Cancer Bill 
Springfield, IL -- Two possible Illinois gubernatorial contenders in the 
Republican party contested one another yesterday during the hearing on 
Senate Resolution 8 which calls for a task force to investigate the 
abortion-breast cancer link. 

The sponsor of the resolution is Senator Patrick O'Malley. Lieutenant 
Governor Corinne Wood, a breast cancer survivor who calls herself 
'pro-choice,' opposed the measure which would allow women to make an 
informed choice. However, Ms. Wood failed to win the support of her own 
party, and the measure passed by a vote of 7 to 4. 

Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union and the National 
Organization for Women appeared in opposition to this women's health 
issue. Ms. Wood represented the abortion industry and its supporters well, 
but not pro-choice women. She argued that the same Senators who have 
mandated vaccinations, called abortion "health care" on numerous occasions 
and passed many laws concerning abortion over the last thirty years, were 
not capable of making decisions on matters concerning health care. 

Senator O'Malley opined, "If you were to take (Wood's) logic to its 
logical conclusion, then we should not have a public health committee, and 
we do. I don't believe there's a single doctor on our committee," he said. 
"We deal with evaluating studies year after year." 

Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, an 
international women's organization, reported that "Ms. Wood was obviously 
given some bad information by the abortion industry. She called the 
Melbye study, published by the New England Journal of Medicine in 1997, 
the 'gold standard.' Two teams of researchers, including the Brind-Penn 
State team and Senghas and Dolan have criticized Melbye for its errors, 
and their criticisms were published in the NEJM. Even Melbye said that 
'{w}ith each one-week increase in the gestational age of the fetus...there 
was a 3 percent increase in the risk of breast cancer.' Three years after 
Melbye's publication, the NEJM published an article by Katrina Armstrong 
(Feb. 2000) in which abortion was specifically identified as a possible 
'risk factor.'" 

Mrs. Malec added that "Dr. Edison Liu of the National Cancer Institute 
(NCI) informed Congressman Tom Coburn, M.D. during a hearing on The State 
of Cancer Research on July 20, 1998 that 'one study does not make a 
conclusion.' Twenty-seven studies call for a conclusion that differs from 
Melbye's. Ms. Wood also relied on the NCI for her information, an agency 
whose credibility in this area of research has been significantly damaged 
because of allegations from physicians in Congress and Dr. Joel Brind, the 
international expert who conducted the 1996 review and meta-analysis of 
the studies, that the agency had misled the public, 'selectively released 
data' paid for by U.S. taxpayers and posted 'an outright lie' on its 
website." 

In citing another example of Ms. Wood's misinformation, Mrs. Malec said, 
"The lieutenant governor told the Senators on the committee that 'A study 
from Sweden that followed women for 20 years even found that a woman who 
had had an abortion had a lower risk of cancer than a woman who had never 
been pregnant.' The truth of the matter is that Dr. Joel Brind proved that 
the Swedish researchers had covered up an abortion-breast cancer link in 
Norwegian women. He made these accusations and cited the study's errors 
in a letter published in 1998 in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community 
Health, and the Swedish researchers have never responded to accusations of 
a cover-up. This study was funded by Family Health International, another 
member of the family planning industry." 

Mrs. Malec concluded, "As early as 1986 when only two American studies had 
linked abortion with breast cancer, a researcher for the Centers for 
Disease Control, Phyllis Wingo, told the prestigious British journal, 
Lancet, that 'Induced abortion before first term pregnancy increases the 
risk of breast cancer.' Ironically, she was discussing the increasing 
incidence of breast cancer among Swedish women. Significantly, Wingo 
later went to work for the American Cancer Society. During her employment 
there in 1997 she flip flopped on this health issue and, after conducting 
a review of the studies, concluded that she couldn't reach any definitive 
conclusions. She made this assertion in spite of the fact that her data 
showed a clear indication in the direction of increased risk. The 
American Cancer Society supports fetal tissue research, and obviously has 
a conflict with the best interests of breast cancer patients here." 

Mrs. Malec concluded that "The abortion industry is comparable to the 
tobacco industry which, for many years, refused to acknowledge the 
existence of a tobacco-cancer link. That industry established a very high 
bar for evidence and insisted that conclusive proof of a link had not been 
demonstrated. Planned Parenthood and its supporters in the NCI have 
established the same high bar for evidence of an abortion-breast cancer 
link." 

Mrs. Malec said, "The abortion industry reluctantly chose to raise the 
decibel level of the debate by inviting the lieutenant governor to speak 
against the measure. In doing so, the media became interested and more 
women learned about what the industry had hoped to keep a secret forever 
-- that induced abortion is a risk factor for breast cancer." 

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women's 
organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by 
educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for 
breast cancer. 

-- 
Pregnancy Centers Online 
www.pregnancycenters.org 






David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  Tish (TISHF)    5/29/2001 5:46 pm  
To:  Peg (ztagrl)   (20 of 84)  
 
  23.20 in reply to 23.9  
 
You're right Brooke, My husband and will celebrate our 11th anniversary on Friday, and both pregnancy's were planned, at no other time have we used anything other than fertility awareness to prevent pregnancy. 

Tish


 
Baby Number 2 Expected in



Hosted by SiteGadgets Free! 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  wknight001   6/20/2001 7:01 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (21 of 84)  
 
  23.21 in reply to 23.1  
 
Dear David, 
I am -very- glad to see you gettting this information out there. This is only the tip of the iceburg for the harmful side effects of the pill--Not only physically to the female, but also societally. To the human family. 

You can see since the advent of the pill a drastic change and destruction in the human family. 

That the pill, like abortions, is available not because of its safety but because of the political forces behind it, people simply do not consider. Any more than the read the fine print on the -many- harmful sideeffects included in the packages and understand the true consequences of it. 

People just -do not want to know-, because they want a -quick fix-, and the -quick fix- is almost always SIN. 

Sincerely, 

Jeffrey Thomas 
+AMDG
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
1.0 (1 vote) 
  
    
 


  From:  wknight001   6/20/2001 7:05 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (22 of 84)  
 
  23.22 in reply to 23.1  
 
Dear David, 
Here are some related links. 

http://www.lifeissues.net/birthcon/index.html 

NFP Forum: 
http://www.delphi.com/nfptalk/messages 

Couple to Couple League (NFP) 
http://www.ccli.org 

http://www.pilltruth.com/ 

Germaine Greer, in her new book, The Whole Woman, tells it straight. She says, These days, contraception is abortion because... pills cannot be shown to prevent sperm fertilising an ovum ... Whether you feel that the creation and wastage of so many embryos is an important issue or not, you must see that the cynical deception of women by selling abortifacients as if they were contraceptives is incompatible with the respect due to women as human beings. 

Sincerely, 

Jeffrey Thomas 
+AMDG 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/21/2001 11:21 am  
To:  ALL   (23 of 84)  
 
  23.23 in reply to 23.19  
 
Subject: British Doc Changes Mind on Abortion-Breast Cancer Link 
Source: Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer; June 20, 2001 
British Doc Changes Mind on Abortion-Breast Cancer Link 

London, England -- It was only last year in an August 14, 2000 issue of 
The Times that Thomas Stuttaford, M.D. authored an article entitled, "Can 
Abortions Be Linked to Breast Cancer?" In this article, Dr. Stuttaford 
reassured British women that abortion is a safe procedure. He declared 
that, "As yet there is no evidence of a causative link between abortion 
and breast cancer," and he incorrectly added that "none has been claimed 
by Professor (Joel) Brind." 

Less than a year later, on May 17, 2001 Stuttaford authored another 
article for The Times in which he revealed that he had reversed his 
position on the abortion-breast cancer research. In an article entitled 
"Fresh Line of Attack," he wrote that: 

"Breast cancer is diagnosed in 33,000 women in the U.K. each year; of 
these, an unusually high proportion had an abortion before eventually 
starting a family. Such women are up to four times more likely to develop 
breast cancer. 

"A report by the Royal Statistical Society shows that a termination of 
pregnancy interrupts the cellular changes that occur in the breast during 
pregnancy. Once the woman has had children, the effect is less because 
the cellular changes have been completed...." 

Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, an 
international women's organization, offered her comments on this turn of 
events by saying that "The British scientific community has consistently 
demonstrated far less bias against the abortion-breast cancer research 
than has the American scientific community. The British have been far 
more willing to publish solid research showing a positive association 
between abortion and breast cancer. We invite the American scientific 
community to set aside its political ideology in favor of women's health 
by objectively evaluating and publishing the scientific research." 

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women's 
organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by 
educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for 
breast cancer. 

-- 
You can make a donation on your credit card to support the Pro-Life 
Infonet, please go to http://www.womenandchildrenfirst.org/creditcard 






David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    7/5/2001 4:01 pm  
To:  ALL   (24 of 84)  
 
  23.24 in reply to 23.19  
 
Scientific Evidence Ignored in Abortion-Breast Cancer Link 
[Pro-Life Infonet Note: The following article is by Chicago Tribune 
columnist Dennis Byrne. Mr. Byrne is a Chicago-area writer and public 
affairs consultant.] 

When I wrote about a possible link between induced abortions and increased 
risk of breast cancer, I simply was suggesting that women have a right to 
know about the scientific evidence. 

Turns out we're not even supposed to talk about it, according to some 
indignant responses to my May 21 column. Just discussing it is like 
shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Disappointingly, some of this 
sentiment came from "scientists," who should know better. 

In general, they said, it was not enough to count up studies. Naturally, 
that had nothing to do with the fact that most studies establish a link 
between breast cancer and induced abortions. In science, the majority 
doesn't rule, they said. That's true, and I hope they send the same 
message to those who insist the global warming question is "settled" 
because "most mainstream scientists" agree that it is. 

Some of my critics wanted to argue from authority. We can do that, if we 
include a British authority, Thomas Stuttaford. A year ago he denied the 
existence of a "causative link" between abortion and breast cancer but 
then changed his mind, noting that among the 33,000 British women 
diagnosed with breast cancer each year, "an unusually high proportion had 
an abortion before eventually starting a family. Such women are up to four 
times more likely to develop breast cancer." 

So let's discuss the science itself. Among the few studies cited by those 
who don't want a public debate on the abortion-breast cancer link is the 
"Melbye" study. This supposedly trumps all other studies because it 
included every woman born in Denmark between 1935 and l978--1.5 
million--more than 400,000 abortions and more than 10,000 cases of breast 
cancer. 

Its supporters say it proved that induced abortions "have no overall 
effect on the risk of breast cancer." But just as the volume of studies do 
not automatically make a scientific premise correct, neither do large 
numbers of participants, as in the Melbye study. Cancer researcher Joel 
Brind (who produced an analysis supporting the ABC link) argues that 
Melbye is critically flawed: It only started logging abortions in 1973 and 
began logging breast cancer cases from 1968--a five-year difference. That 
left out 300 cases of breast cancer from the study that should have been 
included. It also left out as many as 80,000 abortions, but the 60,000 
women who had them were included in the study. Why? The excuse was that 
Denmark legalized the right to an induced abortion through 12 weeks 
gestation in 1973. I say "excuse" because abortion rights had been 
incrementally liberalized in Denmark as far back as 1939. 

The study is, in a word, garbage. 

With 80,000 abortions expunged from the records, it's no wonder they said 
they found no ABC link, even though the numbers showed a 44 percent 
increased risk. To rid the conclusion of even that, they came up with a 
"cohort adjustment," which, to oversimplify, tried to explain away the 
link by adjusting for age differences. Unfortunately for the study's 
authors it didn't work, Brind said. When you cut through it all, not only 
do you find an ABC link, but in Denmark induced abortion is a particularly 
strong risk factor--somewhere between double or triple the risk, 
especially for those with a family history of cancer. 

This family history effect was found in another study by Janet Daling, in 
which 900 women with breast cancer were compared with a control group of 
900 other women. This risk was particularly strong for a first abortion 
that occurred before age 18. Critics of the study say it is flawed by 
"recall bias"--apparently meaning that women's recollections of having an 
abortion were mistaken or deceptive. Specifically, that women with breast 
cancer made up abortions that they didn't have. 

One last study, not mentioned by critics of the ABC link: The "Adelaide" 
(Australia) study found several risk factors in breast cancer but didn't 
mention abortion. That stayed in the file cabinet because it showed a 160 
percent increased ABC risk. This data wasn't made public until it was 
uncovered by another researcher. 

No one suggests that every woman who has breast cancer had an abortion; or 
that every woman who has had an abortion will get breast cancer. But the 
scientific evidence of an ABC link is growing stronger, and a 
paternalistic and self-serving abortion industry should not be trying to 
hide it from women. 

-- 
Please encourage a pro-life friend to sign up for Infonet. They can go 
to: www.roevwade.org 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  mrscottle   7/15/2001 10:17 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (25 of 84)  
 
  23.25 in reply to 23.24  
 
There is good and bad to every aspect of life. 
I would never tell anyone not to do this, or to do that. Who am I? Birth control of any kind is an option. We all have the right to do as we please. We make our descisions and then God Himself will judge us on our day. 
Personally, I could not go and discuss something that private with anyone but my own doctor. I could not fathom talking to "other couple's" about my fertility times and when we should have intercourse. I would rather that be kept between my husband and I. I would not even want to engage in sexual activity with my husband after dicussing it with other people. How personal! God even turns His eyes when married couples engage in their love making. 
Also, we need to focus more on UNMARRIED teenager's having intercourse and the use of birth controls, (any form). It would be very unwise to deterr these young people from using contraceptives. Look at all the unwanted children already. Do we really need more? The children are, after all, the ones who suffer. 
Birth control pills are no more dangerous than anything else we have here on earth. Do you know that even our FRESH produce are being INJECTED with pesticides? 
All medicines have risks. Would you not want your mother or father to have medicine for his or hers diabetes? Or what about their osteoperosis? Or even better, how about treating their arthritis or cancer even? All medicine is a risk factor. But there is also good in these medicines. We are living longer and longer thanks to medicines. GOD FORBID we take the birth control alternatives away from our younger people. It is sinful what they do, but the children they could have do not deserve the life they are bound to have. Don't punish unborn children. To enter them into a world of neglect is serious cruelty. Everyone says that adoption is an option. Yes it is, but only for certain few children. Most are thrown from foster home to foster home. Never living a life of stability. I consider them lost souls. How sad is that? Now think of the DEVASTATING and LONG TERM effects of NOT having contraceptives? Is it worth it? Really? Do those babies deserve that? GOD DID GIVE US WISDOM. He intends for us to use it. 
God Bless all. Always pray for God to take care of things, for doing so, He is sure to. 
Mrs Cottle 
P.s. Another fact. Women who have their FIRST child AFTER the age of 30 have a much higher risk for breast cancer. 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
5.0 (2 votes) 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    7/16/2001 7:52 am  
To:  mrscottle   (26 of 84)  
 
  23.26 in reply to 23.25  
 
Hi, 
Interesting post. 

It sounds as though you are placing physical and human circumstances above God. By saying that people born into families of income have a good desirable life and people who are born of low estate are lost souls. There are countless examples of children born into privilege and they do not live Godly lives and there are even more examples of people overcoming obstacles in life to the Glory of God. 

The information given on this forum for this topic is just that information, to assist people in making informed decisions about their lives and their bodies. It is my belief that an informed decision begins by talking to God in prayer first then talking to doctors and researchers. 

Biblically it is God that is the Giver of Life, any and all pregnancy is of God. Who are we to kill what God is creating? We have to let God facilitate His creation. To destroy a child in the womb is the opposite of Christianity it is untrusting and unbiblical. 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
1.0 (1 vote) 
  
    
 


  From:  mrscottle   7/16/2001 10:50 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (27 of 84)  
 
  23.27 in reply to 23.26  
 
Hi again. 
No one or no thing is above God. All children are God's children. Even we adults are God's children. I was not implying that children of "low estates" are lost souls. I was speaking of the children born on the streets with no love, no home, no food, no shelter.These children suffer physically and emotionally. God does not want this. Consider other countries where there is not even clean water to drink. Look at the children over there suffering because they do not have food or water or shelter. It is not limited to other countries. It is also in the USA. I feel we need to take care of the children who are already here before we try to take on more. I would love to be able to "force" all people who are not prepared for children to abstain from sexual activity. But that is not realistic. What is realistic is contraceptives. If people are going to continue to engage in sexual activity, unstable and unwed, (and they will), they need contraceptives. I will stand strong on that belief. We,adult, married people have different options that we can choose. It is not the same for the 12, 13, 14 , 15 year olds that are out here every day having babies. They ultimately need protection. 
My husband and I are trying to have our first child now! (Terribly excited and scared!!) We are by no means rich with money or material things. We do not have cable, we don't have caller id or 2 way phone lines, no pools or no fancy cars. But what we have that is desirable for our children is an enormous amount of love to give them. That is where we are rich. So many children do not have that. So many children have nothing. We need to control "children having children". That is where the "wisdom" comes in. I know without a doubt that God does not want this. It is against everything in His will. Those children are too young to realize the circumstance of having childen at their age. That is where the adults step in and try to control the growing problem. I was an infant in the christian world until about 2 years ago. ( I am almost 30 now). I had no clue as to what God wanted from us. I am still learning. I have a long way to go too! I know also these kids don't have a clue either. Something told me to write in this forum last night and I did. 
I have seen God help me in many ways. He physically answered a prayer for me,( which was a question to Him). I cried it was so amazing! But these rebellious kids out here today are not(unfortunatley)interested in church or God. So I feel it is up to us to prevent it. 
The forum here is a good one. There are informative messages through out this site. But it scares me to think a young person, as mentioned above, might read this and see that contraceptives are bad and decide they shouldn't take them. But then again, mabee they will see that married couples should be having children and not youngsters. 
I am out of words now. I think I have said what was told to me to say. I pray for you all. And I ask every one to do the same for my husband and I that we can be blessed with a child. Thank you. Have a wonderful week. Mrs Cottle 
P.s. I posted a message under "general discussion" titled "WOW". It is pretty amazing if you would like to check it out.  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
5.0 (1 vote) 
  
    
 


  From:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   7/16/2001 11:47 am  
To:  mrscottle   (28 of 84)  
 
  23.28 in reply to 23.27  
 
MrsCottle.... 
The original intent of the thread was to alert woman to some of the potential negative effects of taking birth control pills...especially if used over an extended period of time. But as to some of your sentiments.... 

Most of the children being born in the world are to 'married' people. If only the rich are allowed to bear children, what kind of a world would that be? Seems to me as Christains we have a duty ( done in love) to help the poor. Ecconomic assistence, business investments ( non exploitive) along with making all options of birth control available, would be compassionate responses to the poor, not regulating who is ecconomically fit to parent. Redistribution of wealth and resources ( non political) certainly helps. The spirit of it all should be to help our fellow God created man, period. Why should only a poor person be deprived of children??? Seems to me to be very self serving to the rich. 

Surely, the poor have much to contribute... even if not ecconomically.... Jesus himself was born into a poor family. 
Regards, 
R/C 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   7/16/2001 12:29 pm  
To:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   (29 of 84)  
 
  23.29 in reply to 23.28  
 
Steven and I had talked about this a little before in an earlier string. Truth is, most of the people in this world have no idea how to properly rear a child. In a recent poll, a reasonable chunk of new parents didn't even know it was harmful to shake a baby! Beyond that, most children aren't born into homes with a stable family structure. Look at the Divorce and infidelity rates in America for example. 
Most poor kids never get the opportunities that the rest of the population has access to. The gang violence and drug abuse rates are testimony to this. The instate tuition for most colleges is becoming almost too expensive for even upper-middle class citizens. Even with grants, financial assistance and scholarships, the average tuition at most US colleges is about $3,000 a semester. One would obviously say that some are able to get full ride scholarships, however, if you go to an inner city school, there is no way on Earth a college is going to give one to you because of your high school's overall academic performance. Overall school academic standing is now looked at for college admission and this the reason many rich parents are fighting to enter their kids into private, very expensive college prep schools. 

Adoption is all fine and dandy, but from my life experience I've seen that there are more orphans then there are people willing to adopt. If you're not adopted at a young age, nobody wants you because you aren't cute and cuddly anymore. If you've ever been to an orphanage for teens, you'll soon note that most of them have an extensive criminal record (usually regarding drugs, vandalism and violence) and are usually involved in gang activity of one form or another... Just like the kids who have parents who don't do their job. 

What we need in this country is a free, equal educational system along with a more educated society. 



-The Mad Dr. Shock
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    7/16/2001 12:52 pm  
To:  ALL   (30 of 84)  
 
  23.30 in reply to 23.29  
 
The ultimate Question being addressed here is the Quality of life vs. the Amount of Suffering an individual might endure.
In other words is it better as Job Lamented to Never be born than to be born, into a sinful world, and experience the evil that is the product of sin and the fall.

God has already answered this question. Because God has permitted the Human race to continue in the existence of sin. God has determined that to Know Life and to Experience evil is better than to never live and never experience life.

God has limited the physical lifespan of humans. There is an end to All suffering, it is Accepting Jesus and going to His Heaven which Jesus provide by His death on the cross.

Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.






David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    7/17/2001 8:24 am  
To:  ALL   (31 of 84)  
 
  23.31 in reply to 23.1  
 
From: The Pro-Life Infonet www.prolifeinfo.org 
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt infonet@prolifeinfo.org 
Subject: National Public Radio Accused of Bias on Abortion-Breast Cancer 
Source: Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer; July 15, 2001 
National Public Radio Accused of Bias on Abortion-Breast Cancer 

Washington, DC -- An international women's organization denounced National 
Public Radio (NPR) today for its bias against nearly a half of a century 
of research published in esteemed medical journals and implicating 
abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer. 

Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer reported 
her experience with the "Diane Rehm Show" which is broadcast on NPR. She 
said: 

"On the morning of December 14, 2000, I called the "Diane Rehm Show" in 
Washington, D.C. Diane Rehm was interviewing Richard North Patterson, the 
author of a novel entitled, Protect and Defend, which concerns a teenager 
considering an abortion. 

"After introducing myself, I asked Mr. Patterson if he had explored the 
impact of the abortion-breast cancer link on teenagers. I explained that 
in the only study specifically commissioned by the National Cancer 
Institute, Dr. Janet Daling and her colleagues from the prestigious Fred 
Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle reported in 1994 that teens who have 
abortions more than double their risk of breast cancer. As I started to 
add the fact that Daling found that teens with a family history of the 
disease have an incalculably high risk of breast cancer, the personnel at 
NPR unexpectedly cut to station identification. I was in mid-sentence 
when this happened. 

"When Diane Rehm returned, she said to me, 'Are you still there?' I 
replied, 'Yes.' Then Mr. Patterson asserted that neither the American 
Medical Association (AMA) nor the American College of Obstetricians and 
Gynecologists (ACOG) acknowledge an abortion-breast cancer link. I was 
not given an opportunity to respond because Diane Rehm rudely hanged up on 
me at that point. I would have informed her listeners that, although it 
is true that the AMA and ACOG deny 44 years of published research and more 
than two dozen studies linking abortion with breast cancer, the United 
Kingdom's Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists warned its 
abortion practitioners last year that the abortion-breast cancer research 
'could not be disregarded.' I was allowed to say only a few short 
sentences for the entire show. 

"I recognize that the abortion-breast cancer research is not a politically 
correct subject for discussion. However, women's lives are at stake, and 
we have a right to know that 27 out of 35 peer reviewed studies have 
linked abortion with breast cancer. It hardly seems just for the taxpayer 
supported NPR to expect women to unknowingly risk their lives in order to 
achieve an elective result. 

"A letter and an e-mail were sent to Diane Rehm objecting to her lack of 
professionalism, fairness and objectivity. I have not received a response 
from Diane Rehm. More importantly, the public was not educated about all 
of the facts concerning the abortion-breast cancer research because NPR 
found them too discomforting. Tragically, more women will die of 
abortion-induced breast cancer because NPR put its ideology ahead of 
women's lives and cooperated in the abortion industry's ongoing efforts to 
deceive the American public." 

ACTION: Please contact NPR with your polite comments regarding this 
situation. In your correspondence, please encourage Diane Rehm to invite 
Karen Malec on her program to have a full discusssion of the link between 
abortion and breast cancer. You can email drshow@wamu.org 

-- 
Please consider a donation to the Pro-Life Infonet. You can send it to 
Women and Children First, PO Box 4433, Helena, MT 59604-4433. 






David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Tracey (BRUSHJOCKEY)    7/25/2001 3:11 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (32 of 84)  
 
  23.32 in reply to 23.31  
 
David, I think that when we find out something bad with a medicine, or drug, we all tend to panic and the newest informations tends to garner the most attention. 
What I think as a Christian woman is that we need to be informed. 
Period. We need to stop letting other people tell us what to do with our bodies and how to do it. 
There is just too much information available today. 
You might say Uh huh your on the pill right?, why yes David I am. 
I have been on the pill for most of my life I am now just turned 44, and I started when I was just 16. But it was not for "birthcontrol" that first took the pill. Nor was it acne. It was for the simple fact that nothing else helped. I had a period for more than 2 weeks out of the month and terrible side affects, such as terrible cramping, headaches, mood swings, well it was just bad. I never wore white. 
So for me the pill was a blessing. At a time when nothing else was on the horizon. I was off the pill 2 years before I became pregnant with my daughter and thought finally the pregancy would set my body to rights, as sometimes it does for women. Wrong. so I resumed taking the pill again. 
Yes breast cancer looms large in front of me , but for others that dont take the pill they are diagnosed with breat cancer. 
I don't smoke, drink, etc... I really am a quite boring person, in regards to lifesyle, some would say. I only know that you can't say a medicine(for that is what it is for me) is all bad. If you have ever read the patient inserts that come with any medicine, you would throw up your hands an run screaming from the room. I will soon take myself off the pill, under a doctors care. I am getting to the age of menopause (as far as my family history goes) and I want to slide into it as naturally as possible, though my husband and I are prepared for a bumpy ride. It is not the best time of a womans life in the best of circumstances. I will have to take it one day at a time with God's help, for I see no other way of getting through it. 
The pill came at a time for me in my life when I was still inmature and it offered the best soloution, I hope now that I am a mature woman I will be able to handle with the support of my husband whatever comes my way, as we start this new journey. 
I might also add that I was glad to see women jump in here and give thier opinions and voice thier concerns, even if you are a Christian man that loves your wife dearly, you can not fully appreciate our concerns as women. Just as we can not fully understand some issuse that men have. I understand your concerns, but please temper your information, scaring women into submission(perhaps not the best word) is not well done of you and even if that is not what you intended, I think that is the tone of your message. I am not pro abortion, I am pro life never in my wildest imaginings was taking the pill intended to kill an unborn child. It was to provide a quality of life, for myself and eventually my husband. I also think that not enough birthcontrol methods such as were mentioned here are given to women as options, nor are they explained well and for the links,for any of those interested to read I am thankful. Respectfully, Tracey 






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 7/25/01 6:19:39 PM ET by BRUSHJOCKEY 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   7/25/2001 3:39 pm  
To:  Tracey (BRUSHJOCKEY)    (33 of 84)  
 
  23.33 in reply to 23.32  
 
Here, here! 
The reason I went on the Depo shot was for health reasons rather then birth control. Originally, the doctor suggested it to me because I'm Bipolar and refuse to take psych meds. He thought that maybe if my hormones were more in balance it would help with my outrageous manic episodes. Oddly enough, it did, although both the pill and the shot are supposed to cause mood swings. 

Although I'm only twenty, I've also got a medical history that rivals most seventy year olds'. The doctors have warned me several times that if I were to become pregnant either me or the baby would end up dead. Despite the shot, I still have a tendency to become anemic for no good reason. 

Also, if I were to have a baby, I'd want to be able to go all nine months without so much as an asprin. I'd want to make sure that my baby was given the best possible environment to develop in. As it stands now, I can't get through a day without having to take prescription anti-inflammatory and acid suppressors for my stomach. I know enough about toxicology to know that any medicine, no matter how "safe" the doctors claim it to be, is only about as safe as most street drugs. Who knows what Vioxx or Protonix (the two medications I'm currently on) would do to a developing baby? Not to mention I'm a chain smoker and I don't see that changing until I'm out of college. 

My fianc and I have decided to have children, but not until both of us are financially stable and in good health. 



-The Mad Dr. Shock
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Sorcha97   8/20/2001 1:50 pm  
To:  mrscottle unread  (34 of 84)  
 
  23.34 in reply to 23.25  
 
Thank you for your statment that all medicines have risks. There are women, such as myself, who take high-dose birth controll pills not to prevent conception, but to treat an incurable conidtion called endometriosis. Banning the use of, or stigmatizing women who use, birth control pills is near- sighted and selfish. 
Some day I hope to be able to stop taking these pills and have a child. Until that time I hope the Holy Church, and God, understands my reasons. 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  Steen Goddik (sgoddik)   8/21/2001 1:14 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)     
 
    
 
Since this tread is still active, I'll comment. You did not cite somebody else as having provided the summary from the radio show, so I will assume that this summary is done by you, unless you tell me otherwise (this becomes important, because I must accuse the source of this article of providing outright falsehoods regarding health issues). 
-- 
[D] This radio show had several good comments about a topic that is being suppressed by the medical community, the topic of the effects of abortion and the synthetic birth control pill on women. 
-- 

There is no "supression," despite your claim. There is a thorough research history, and it unequivocably disproves your claims. 

-- 
[D] The cell structure and cell division that takes place in a woman is suited for childbirth, particularly in the breast. 
-- 

COmpletely false assertion. There is nothing related to breast development, breast tissue or changes in breast tissue from pregnancy that makes a woman more "suited" for childbirth. The only tissue that makes a woman "suited" for actuall childbirth is her uterus. Your claim is not true. 

-- 
[D] Once a woman becomes pregnant the body prepares to take care of the child, especially the breasts. 
-- 

What, exactly are you trying to claim here? WHat other tissue is "prepared" for taking care of the child, when it comes into existence at birth? As such, the claim of "especially" is false. 

-- 
[D] If the pregnancy is terminated the body does not exactly return to the original condition prior to the pregnancy. 
-- 

Yes it does. Additionally, when the pregnancy is terminated in first trimester, the breast tissue never even start its development (that happens to encompas around 90% of all abortions). 

-- 
[D] The cells in the breast become more vulnerable to toxins. 
-- 

Why? Through what physiological process? I say your statement is false. 

-- 
[D] The birth control Pill happens to be just such a toxin, increasing the likelihood of breast cancer 200%. 
-- 

Hmm, careful here. You are getting dangerously close to an outright lie. The "toxin" you are talking about is estrogen, a compound also produced by the woman's own body. As an endogenous compound by definition can not be a toxin, your terminology is falsely applied. 

Additionally, the claim of a 200% increase in breast cancer from estrogen is an outright falsehood, and you really ought to verify such numbers before unjustifiably scare a lot of women with such falsehood. NO valid research has shown this, especially in the last 15-20 years after the pill was reformulated. If you want to claim they are valid for what the pill was 20 years ago, go ahead and dig up verifiable data, but to try to apply it to the pill as it is available to day is directly dishonest. I REALLY hope that this was not doe on purpose by you, as that would raise serious issues regarding your ethics. 

So please confirm that you did NOT purposefully try to use old, unsubstantiated numbers numbers to somehow let it be believed that this has ANY relevance to the pill of today. 

-- 
[D] The Pill is a synthetic hormone, like all synthetic hormones it causes side effects. 
-- 

Actually, for one, not all brands are synthetic. Secondly, the claim of this being the source of "sideeffects" is a falsehood. The degree of systhetic origin ir unrelated to the likelihood of sideeffects. Please research such claims before posting falsehoods. 

-- 
[D] The pill is designed to kill certain bodily reproductive functions 
-- 

What do you mean with "kill"? Some hormonal changes are suppressed as long as the elevated level of estrogen is present, but the effect is in no way permanent. Thus, to use the term "kill" is seriously questionable. 

-- 
[D] this can be noticed by reduced acne, as the pill kills acne 
-- 

No it doesn't. Acne is a viral skin infection. The estrogen and/or progesterone does NOT kill acne. Rather, it makes the skin less succeptible to infection. Your claim is not true. And as such, when your "evidentary statement is false, your original claim is also not substantiated. 

-- 
[D} The same pill however is destructive to the liver, breasts and other vital organs of the woman. 
-- 

A falsehood. Please document or retract. Please show what recent and/or medically accepted research support this outrageous claim. 

-- 
[D] Especially when combined with other chemicals such as smoking, 
-- 

"smoking" is an act, not a chemical. Some chemicals in the smoke, however, will make venous blood clots more likely when in the precence of estrogen. As this is dose-dependent, the elevated level of estrogen from BCP will make the woman more succeptible to blood clots, mainly in the legs. This is why physicians don't want to place smoking women on estrogen-containing birthcontrol pills. 

-- 
{D] drinking, 
-- 

"drinking" again is an act, not a chemical. Alcohol certainly will affect the liver, but is not exasserbated by estrogen. As such, its inclusion in your list is not substantiated. 

-- 
[D] nitrates in foods, 
-- 

Nitrates of any kind will affect the body. This is not changed by estrogen. As such, its inclusion in your list is not substantiated. 

-- 
[D] fast foods, 
-- 

fast food is an item, not a chemical. Please explain its relevance on this list. It patently seesm to be unjustified. 

-- 
[D] and diet sodas. 
-- 

There is no evidence at all, what so ever, that diet soda has any intercation with estrogen. And again, it is an item, not a chemical. 

So in conclusion, your list is not warranted. Please do not include such scaremongering falsehood in your posts. 

-- 
[D] Solutions: Natural cycle birth control, where the husband and wife work together and abstain from intimacy during fertile times. 
-- 

The level of breast cancer in these couples are no different than in couples using oral contraceptives. Please do not dishonestly portray such as a "solution." It is HIGHLY unethical, especially since it is obvious that you have no medical training and no comprehensionb of the meaning of your claims or their lack of truth. 

Oh, and as a sidenote, with PERFECT use (no mistakes at all), 16% of couples practising natural family planning will experience pregnancy within one year. With the use in reality, (typical use), 45% of couples experience pregnancy in the first year. It is VERY IRRESPONSIBLE to promote a method of birth control that in reality fail nearly half the time. 
(source: Hatcher RA, Trussell J Steward F, et al: Contraceptive technology. 16th ed. p.113. NY: Irvington (1994) 

-- 
[D] Also men that are abstinent during the fertile times, are men that are more sexually disciplined and not as susceptible to having an affair or to getting involved in pornography. 
-- 

There is no evidence of cause and effect here. Please citethe research that made this conclusion. This **IS** proven through research, right? This is not just something you made up, is it? And how did you show cause/effect rather than correlation? 

-- 
[D] It has been found that women who eat Whole Grains in their diets and add a Flax supplement have a better functioning body. Flax the grain, in flour or powder form, seems to be an Incredible nutrient for the Hormonal functioning of a woman?s body. 
-- 

Actually, flax is a source of "omega-3" fatty acids, the essential oil also found in some fish. As for the grain, this is because of the fiber content, thus having absolutely NO effect on hormonal functioning. 

-- 
[D] The pill seems to be an easy quick convenient solution to an embarrassing situation 
-- 

I fail to see anything "embarrassing" regarding use of oral contraceptives. What are you refering to here? 

-- 
[D] but in the long run of a lifetime of health and happiness the pill and other synthetic birth control is not an option. 
-- 

Completely untrue. 

Finally here are the known risk factors for breast cancer. Note that oral contraceptives or abortion are NOT among them: 
------------------------------------------------------ 
Family history (BRCA1 gene) 
No pregnancy ever or late age of first pregnancy 
Early menarche (puberty/1st menstrual period) 
Late menopause 
Age above 40 years 
Prolonged unupposed estrogen use (hormonal therapy without progesterone) 
High fat diet 
History of ovarian or endometrial cancer 
Previous breats cancer 
Fibrocystic disease **WITH** atypical cells (no risk with FCD without atypical cells) 
Breast irradiation 
------------------------------------------------------- 
Source: Hacker NF Breast disease: a gynecological perspective. p.511. In NF hacker & JG Moore (eds). Essentials of obstetrics and gynecology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders (1998) 

Steen 




Interesting Quotes: 


I think abortion of a fetus is just as tragic as starvation of an infant.
-ChiefScalia-!
I don't know if God is a bigot. If He is, then bigotry is good.
-Keepyobaby-!
I don't see the problem with recognizing it {molar pregnancy} as life...it's not going to develope but it is still a conception and alive.
-K-Lynn, self-acknowledged fundie-!
By making [abortion] legal you force availability on them
-K-Lynn, self-acknowledged fundie-!
And frankly, even children who are beaten experience life. 
-ThatOrville-!
that makes the woman's function similar to that of a respirator or similar piece of machinery which acts as a method to sustain life.
-Cecil-!
no one has ever been denied a voice by me or anyone else on a board I've managed.
-David Byron-!
**Edited for dawn as she claimed never to hold that particular opinion** .
-Mrs. Write-! 


 
From:  Steen Goddik (sgoddik)   8/21/2001 1:25 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (36 of 84)  
 
  23.36 in reply to 23.3  
 
-- 
[D] The teaching institutions and research centers are Rigged towards a disposition of abortion 
-- 
Untrue. Most medical schools do NOT teach abortion. Your claim is again false. It might be your opinion, but it is not true. Please research such verifiable claims before making them. 

-- 
[D] Birth Control and Abortion are Big money and big business. 
-- 

On the other hand, pregnancy and delivery is MUCH bigger money makers and MUCH BIGGER business. 

-- 
{D] Clinics are not about to promote the Morally acceptable and Safer Abstinence programs because there is no prophet to be made from abstinence. 
-- 

Clinics **DO** encourage abstinence, and as such, your claim again is false. The problem, of course, is that "abstinence alone" programs have been shown to result in increased teen pregnancy. 

-- 
[D] Clinics have a vested interest in selling Birth Control, the only solution to them is birth control and therefore they find and Publish according to their cause. 
-- 

The research is done in research hospitals and medical schools, not clinics. Again, your claim is false. You show a SERIOUS lack of knowledge regarding just about anything within the medical community. I am concerned about you making statements in this field when you have demonstrated such limited knowledge and understanding. The likelihood (as we have seen) of you ending up providing untrue information is very high. 

-- 
[D] I purposely posted the Breast Cancer information because it comes from Christian sources. 
-- 

And these "christian" sources, I regret to inform you, are bearing false witness. Their claims are false. Lots of christian sources provide TRUUTHFUL information. Why not utilizing those? Is it because the conclusion reached from these sources are different than your beliefs? Is it that it is not whether the source is christian, but rather about whether you agree with it or not? 

It is becoming clear to me that you are not seeking to provide objective, truthful information, but unfortunately are seeking information based on your beliefs rather than their truthfulness. This is highly regrettable, both in the scientific sense and based on the ethics of Christianity, especially the part about not bearing false witness. The Bible clearly warns us against the false preachers who sue the words of God for their own purpose rather than living by those words. Jesus called such people the False Preachers. I hope you are seeking to not be one such person. 

Steen 




Interesting Quotes: 


I think abortion of a fetus is just as tragic as starvation of an infant.
-ChiefScalia-!
I don't know if God is a bigot. If He is, then bigotry is good.
-Keepyobaby-!
I don't see the problem with recognizing it {molar pregnancy} as life...it's not going to develope but it is still a conception and alive.
-K-Lynn, self-acknowledged fundie-!
By making [abortion] legal you force availability on them
-K-Lynn, self-acknowledged fundie-!
And frankly, even children who are beaten experience life. 
-ThatOrville-!
that makes the woman's function similar to that of a respirator or similar piece of machinery which acts as a method to sustain life.
-Cecil-!
no one has ever been denied a voice by me or anyone else on a board I've managed.
-David Byron-!
**Edited for dawn as she claimed never to hold that particular opinion** .
-Mrs. Write-! 



   
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Steen Goddik (sgoddik)   8/21/2001 1:27 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (37 of 84)  
 
  23.37 in reply to 23.4  
 
-- 
[D] This post is Not intended to be a scare tactic. It is More information given to people who rely on the strengh of Jesus, to have the strength to talk about these issues with one other and with their doctors. 
-- 
The rpoblem is that the post IS a scaremongering. Jesus did NOT instruct us to make false statements regarding health issues. And much of the inmformation in your post is simply not true. I musat admonish and beg you to correct the errors as to not aid the false preachers, from which you got the information. 

Steen


Interesting Quotes: 


I think abortion of a fetus is just as tragic as starvation of an infant.
-ChiefScalia-!
I don't know if God is a bigot. If He is, then bigotry is good.
-Keepyobaby-!
I don't see the problem with recognizing it {molar pregnancy} as life...it's not going to develope but it is still a conception and alive.
-K-Lynn, self-acknowledged fundie-!
By making [abortion] legal you force availability on them
-K-Lynn, self-acknowledged fundie-!
And frankly, even children who are beaten experience life. 
-ThatOrville-!
that makes the woman's function similar to that of a respirator or similar piece of machinery which acts as a method to sustain life.
-Cecil-!
no one has ever been denied a voice by me or anyone else on a board I've managed.
-David Byron-!
**Edited for dawn as she claimed never to hold that particular opinion** .
-Mrs. Write-! 



  


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 8/22/2001 3:58:33 AM ET by SGODDIK 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Steen Goddik (sgoddik)   8/21/2001 1:47 pm  
To:  Peg (ztagrl)   (38 of 84)  
 
  23.38 in reply to 23.7  
 
-- 
[B] Actually, I'm not sure how much you know about the method, but when used correctly, it's just as (if not more so) effective than the pill! 
-- 
Presumably, you are talking about the Creighton Method (the most common one). Unfortunately, this has never been tested in clinical trial, and all we have to go by is the testemony of its developers. 

On the other hand, I did a rotation with a physician who taught and promoted the Creighton method. We encountered three unintended pregnancies each week in his office from a population of around 1400 users. This was mainly in a population where pregnnacy, while unintended was not unwelcome (more of a "if it happens, so be it, but we would like to wait if it is God's will.") Still, this comes out to an average of 150 families each year of 1400 families, or around a 10% failure rate. 

The pill, of course, is MUCH safer than that. 

-- 
[B] the back up function of preventing implantation kicks in. In other words, it aborts the baby. 
-- 

Actually, there are several other workings, such as the thickening of cervical mucus (restricting sperm penerration into the cervix. Additionally, the issue of "abortion" obviously depends on your definition. Usually, abortion refers to the removal of an IMPLANTED embryo, not the prevention of implantation. If the mere fertilization is your guideline, then 1/3rd to 1/2 of all pregnancies are "naturally aborted," meaning that they happen by God's will. Please reconcile this with your claim. 

Steen


Interesting Quotes: 


I think abortion of a fetus is just as tragic as starvation of an infant.
-ChiefScalia-!
I don't know if God is a bigot. If He is, then bigotry is good.
-Keepyobaby-!
I don't see the problem with recognizing it {molar pregnancy} as life...it's not going to develope but it is still a conception and alive.
-K-Lynn, self-acknowledged fundie-!
By making [abortion] legal you force availability on them
-K-Lynn, self-acknowledged fundie-!
And frankly, even children who are beaten experience life. 
-ThatOrville-!
that makes the woman's function similar to that of a respirator or similar piece of machinery which acts as a method to sustain life.
-Cecil-!
no one has ever been denied a voice by me or anyone else on a board I've managed.
-David Byron-!
**Edited for dawn as she claimed never to hold that particular opinion** .
-Mrs. Write-! 



   
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    8/21/2001 2:01 pm  
To:  Steen Goddik (sgoddik)   (39 of 84)  
 
  23.39 in reply to 23.37  
 
Steen,

 

Since I Originally Posted this Article several Months ago, Much More Material and Studies, that are Referenced Throughout the Pro-Life Links on this Board, have come out.

 

I Stood by my original Posting and Now given the additional information I stand even More by this Posting.

 

I think it is important for people to know what they are doing to their bodies and to have the Information available to help make their choices.





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  Steen Goddik (sgoddik)   8/21/2001 2:05 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (40 of 84)  
 
  23.40 in reply to 23.14  
 
Sorry to point this out, Mr. Brown, but the sited article is so full of inaccuracies that if I should comment on it, I would have to repeatedly accuse this Mr. Byrne of being a liar. 
The information was false. 
The claims regarding research and conclusions was false, 
The claims regarding suppression of information is false, 
The statements regarding physiology are false. 

Well, I could go on, but I must really STRONGLY admonish you to chose TRUTHFUL sources. What you posted was not. I must ask you to please delete that post before other people read it and actually believe it. Otherwise, I can certainly go into detail about each false claim, but it would end up being a VERY long post. 

Such scaremongering as this Mr. Byrne engaged in is wholy distasteful and despicable. It is the epitome of the concept of "bearing false witness." It is completely unworthy of being posted in a Christian forum for that reason. 

I hope you will consider deleting that post. 

Steen


Interesting Quotes: 


I think abortion of a fetus is just as tragic as starvation of an infant.
-ChiefScalia-!
I don't know if God is a bigot. If He is, then bigotry is good.
-Keepyobaby-!
I don't see the problem with recognizing it {molar pregnancy} as life...it's not going to develope but it is still a conception and alive.
-K-Lynn, self-acknowledged fundie-!
By making [abortion] legal you force availability on them
-K-Lynn, self-acknowledged fundie-!
And frankly, even children who are beaten experience life. 
-ThatOrville-!
that makes the woman's function similar to that of a respirator or similar piece of machinery which acts as a method to sustain life.
-Cecil-!
no one has ever been denied a voice by me or anyone else on a board I've managed.
-David Byron-!
**Edited for dawn as she claimed never to hold that particular opinion** .
-Mrs. Write-! 



   
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  Peg (ztagrl)   8/21/2001 2:05 pm  
To:  Steen Goddik (sgoddik)   (41 of 84)  
 
  23.41 in reply to 23.38  
 
Actually, I personally using the Sympto-Thermal method, along with barriers during the fertile time. So I suppose I use FAM, rather than NFP. I know Creighton users, as well, though. I personally prefer a little scientific data (ie temperature) to base my interpretation on, as well as the mucus observations. 
Granted, there are unplanned pregnancies when using NFP. However, I have never heard of an NFP user, who uses the most conservative rules, who has had an unplanned pregnancy. In fact, I know of one user who has successfully avoided pregnancy for 7 years! If that's not testimony, I don't know what is! 

Sure, they're out there, however, most of the NFP users that I have encountered who have had an "accidental" pregnancy knew they were taking a risk when they decided to engage in relations. In fact, I think that I know of more people who have become pregnant while on the pill, than I do of accidental pregnancies while using NFP. Surely you are not suggesting that the pill is fail proof!! 

You say that the pill is "safer", yet I don't prefer that terminology. I don't look at a child as a "danger" from which I need to be protected. 

In addition, I think that unplanned pregnancies occur by user error. It's just about as simple as this: a woman is likely to become pregnant when she ovulates. If she's already ovulated, she can most likely assume that she is infertile for the rest of that cycle. Of course, there is the situation of ovulating twice in one month, thus fraternal twins. However, I'd venture to guess that this is the exception, rather than the rule. 

You say that the pill thickens the mucus, "restricting sperm penerration into the cervix", yet you fail to mention the fact that some chemical methods, such as depo provera, actually thin the cervix lining, making it difficult for the egg to implant. 

My defition of a life is indeed a fertilized egg. When this is destroyed, the life ends. Obviously the ones that occur naturally are termed "miscarriage". However, when one knowingly adds chemicals to her body that make these fertilized eggs dislodge, or prevent from lodging, that is what I call abortion. 

The bottom line is that I before a natural method to a chemical one. My conscience is clear, whether Jesus thinks it's wrong or not. I'm not one for taking chances when it comes to my salvation...





Our Wedding Album
Visit Christian Couples' Wedding Guide
Visit Christian Women
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Steen Goddik (sgoddik)   8/21/2001 2:14 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (42 of 84)  
 
  23.42 in reply to 23.11  
 
-- 
[D] You might want to start a new string or post in this string and start a new one, i.e.? Christian birth control Options. 
-- 
Wouldn't that be a misleading title? Certainly many christians do not have a problem with any method that prevents pregnancy prior to implantation, and additionally, many do not even have a problem with abortion. As such, shouldn't there be some kind of qualifier to that title? 

-- 
[D] I have actually been surprised by the amount of resistance to any form of birth control that does not include medication. Resistance from both Christians and non-Christians. 
-- 

This is suprising. The MOST common form of birth control in the US is through sterilization (vasectomy or salpingectomy [tying the tubes]) And condoms and diaghprams certainly are WIDELY used as are IUDs. As such, there are many more users of NON-medication methods of birthcontrol than users of oral contraceptives, depo-provera and norplant. So the "resistance" must be from a minority. 

-- 
[D]and when the pill is no longer taken there can also be some hormonal effects to the body. Flax seed Oil may help with this. 
-- 

Flax seed oil does not have any effect on hormonal changes with either beginning or ending oral contraception. 

-- 
[D] I applaud anyone who is Taking Responsibility for their body and their actions. The NCBC is a Non-Abortive form of birth control and I think that the people who practice it can go to sleep at night feeling good about their decision (* it may be the only humane form of birth control). 
-- 

What is "imhumane" about other methods and why? It is not as if the zygote, f.ex. is sentient or has any ability to feel or be aware. The zygote is no more "aware" than any body organ. 

-- 
[D] I encourage the Church to look into this natural opinion and to examine it, also to talk about it and Most important to Pray about it. 
-- 

Research and improvent is always recommended, yes. I agree with you here. 

Steen


Interesting Quotes: 


I think abortion of a fetus is just as tragic as starvation of an infant.
-ChiefScalia-!
I don't know if God is a bigot. If He is, then bigotry is good.
-Keepyobaby-!
I don't see the problem with recognizing it {molar pregnancy} as life...it's not going to develope but it is still a conception and alive.
-K-Lynn, self-acknowledged fundie-!
By making [abortion] legal you force availability on them
-K-Lynn, self-acknowledged fundie-!
And frankly, even children who are beaten experience life. 
-ThatOrville-!
that makes the woman's function similar to that of a respirator or similar piece of machinery which acts as a method to sustain life.
-Cecil-!
no one has ever been denied a voice by me or anyone else on a board I've managed.
-David Byron-!
**Edited for dawn as she claimed never to hold that particular opinion** .
-Mrs. Write-! 



   
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Steen Goddik (sgoddik)   8/21/2001 2:28 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (43 of 84)  
 
  23.43 in reply to 23.18  
 
-- 
[D] This is such a complex topic. The pill does have benefits of milder menstruation, reduced acne, and now they are claiming reduced cervix cancer. But then are these benefits coming at a higher cost by the harm of introducing synthetic hormones into the body. 
-- 
For one, these compounds are not necessarily synthetic. Secondly, the benefits in reduction of ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer, ectopic pregnancies, anemia, painful menstruation, ovarian cysts, slapingitis (inflamation of the ovatian tubes, which can lead to sterility) and benign (non-lethal) breast disease is WELL documented. I can provide many sources attesting to this, if you so desire. But you can also just pick up a copy of William's Obstetrics" and see for yourself. 

As such, the "harm" you speculate on is unsubstantiated and merely results in unjustified scare to women. Please cease that activity when you are not sure of the information you are discussing. 

-- 
[D] The pill is easily distributed and has a very high profit margin. 
-- 

Actually, it doesn't. because so many brands are available, the pharmaceutical companies are fighting hard for market share, meaning that the profit margin is quite low. Again, you seem to not be entirely informed of the topic you speak to. 

-- 
[D] every bit as big business as Ford Motor. 
-- 

Really? Can you provide sales and profit data to confirm this claim? 

-- 
[D] And they will defend it with all the tenacity that Ford uses to defend the Ford Explorer including blaming everyone and everything but their product. 
-- 

So doi you believe that independent research, meta analyses and the like are falsified? You believe that medical research does not show truthful data? In that case, how can you trusat ANY medication? You are not going to claim that these big pharmaceutical companies are falsifying data only on contraceptives, are you? After all, the competition in classes such as heart medications are much more significant to these firms. You would not claim that research on heart medication is falsified, would you? Should people stop taking that medication? Should they stop taking any medication? 

Where is your evidence of this falsification of data? 

-- 
[D] I find it very interesting because they tell us men and all athletes to stay away from hormones at all costs. 
-- 

That would be to stay away from anabolic steroids, yes. Things like androstendione, testestosterone and such. These are known to cause cancer (PROVEN in research) and heart arrythmias that can kill you. 

-- 
[D] Yet they encourage women to take the Pill a synthetic hormone. 
-- 

Again, many brands are not synthetic. And the effects of the pill is very different from the effects of anabolic steroids. Your comparison is completely invalid. 

-- 
[D] A synthetic hormone is an engineered non-natural hormone. 
-- 

And so what? 

-- 
[D] Mixing a synthetic hormone with smoking, alcohol, drugs, fast food, you name it and it is Very carcinogenic. 
-- 

Is it? Where is your evidence that ANY SYNTHETIC HORMONE will cause cancer in such a mix? Your unqualified claim basically is equal to practicing medicine without a licence. And it is also a false statement. Please cease bearing false witness. I did not come to a Christian forum to witness such behavior. 

Steen 




Interesting Quotes: 


I think abortion of a fetus is just as tragic as starvation of an infant.
-ChiefScalia-!
I don't know if God is a bigot. If He is, then bigotry is good.
-Keepyobaby-!
I don't see the problem with recognizing it {molar pregnancy} as life...it's not going to develope but it is still a conception and alive.
-K-Lynn, self-acknowledged fundie-!
By making [abortion] legal you force availability on them
-K-Lynn, self-acknowledged fundie-!
And frankly, even children who are beaten experience life. 
-ThatOrville-!
that makes the woman's function similar to that of a respirator or similar piece of machinery which acts as a method to sustain life.
-Cecil-!
no one has ever been denied a voice by me or anyone else on a board I've managed.
-David Byron-!
**Edited for dawn as she claimed never to hold that particular opinion** .
-Mrs. Write-! 



   
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Steen Goddik (sgoddik)   8/21/2001 2:31 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (44 of 84)  
 
  23.44 in reply to 23.23  
 
Claims by one physician, and in the newspaper of all places has nothing to do with evidence of any kind. In medicine, evidence means that it is researched, not that someone's opinion is written up in the paper. 
If we ran medicine by opinion, LOTS of people would die. That is why there is an insistence on EVIDENCE. 

Steen


Interesting Quotes: 


I think abortion of a fetus is just as tragic as starvation of an infant.
-ChiefScalia-!
I don't know if God is a bigot. If He is, then bigotry is good.
-Keepyobaby-!
I don't see the problem with recognizing it {molar pregnancy} as life...it's not going to develope but it is still a conception and alive.
-K-Lynn, self-acknowledged fundie-!
By making [abortion] legal you force availability on them
-K-Lynn, self-acknowledged fundie-!
And frankly, even children who are beaten experience life. 
-ThatOrville-!
that makes the woman's function similar to that of a respirator or similar piece of machinery which acts as a method to sustain life.
-Cecil-!
no one has ever been denied a voice by me or anyone else on a board I've managed.
-David Byron-!
**Edited for dawn as she claimed never to hold that particular opinion** .
-Mrs. Write-! 



   
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Steen Goddik (sgoddik)   8/21/2001 2:36 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (45 of 84)  
 
  23.45 in reply to 23.24  
 
Sorry to tell you, Mr. Brown, but this Mr. Byrne is as deceitful and untruthful as last time. he is still bearing falsewitness (I am again ready to go into detail if you so care and promise to actually deal with my points). 
Again, I must admonish you to delete that post, and in addition I would ask you to not use this, by now KNOWN liar any more. It pains me to have to read such obvious examp[les of bearing false witness here on a Christian forum. Is that really what we are all about, the bearing of false witness to further political goals? Is that what Christianity is cheapened to in the name of opposing abortion? 

Respectfully, but with grave concern for the future of Christianity, 

Steen


Interesting Quotes: 


I think abortion of a fetus is just as tragic as starvation of an infant.
-ChiefScalia-!
I don't know if God is a bigot. If He is, then bigotry is good.
-Keepyobaby-!
I don't see the problem with recognizing it {molar pregnancy} as life...it's not going to develope but it is still a conception and alive.
-K-Lynn, self-acknowledged fundie-!
By making [abortion] legal you force availability on them
-K-Lynn, self-acknowledged fundie-!
And frankly, even children who are beaten experience life. 
-ThatOrville-!
that makes the woman's function similar to that of a respirator or similar piece of machinery which acts as a method to sustain life.
-Cecil-!
no one has ever been denied a voice by me or anyone else on a board I've managed.
-David Byron-!
**Edited for dawn as she claimed never to hold that particular opinion** .
-Mrs. Write-! 



   
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Steen Goddik (sgoddik)   8/21/2001 2:46 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (46 of 84)  
 
  23.46 in reply to 23.26  
 
-- 
[D] The information given on this forum for this topic is just that information, to assist people in making informed decisions about their lives and their bodies. 
-- 
As such, please note that you have a responsibility to ensure that the information you post is ACCURATE. Posting information that turns out to be untrue does NOT help people to INFORMED decisions. Rather, it results in MISINFORMED decisions. 

-- 
[D] Biblically it is God that is the Giver of Life, any and all pregnancy is of God. Who are we to kill what God is creating? We have to let God facilitate His creation. To destroy a child in the womb is the opposite of Christianity it is untrusting and unbiblical. 
-- 

For one, the Bible is completely silent on the issue of abortion, except for exodus 21:22-25, which clearly sets the fetus akin to other "property," while establishing the woman's worth as a person. As such, this should indicate that the fetus is NOT equal to the woman, and as such, the woman's wishes should trumph the life of the fetus. That, at least is what the BIBLE says to this topic before being filtered through personal opiniuon and interpretations and political expediency. 

Secondly, God "kills" between 1/3rd and 1/2 of all fertilized eggs. Are we to blame God now? I should hope that our hybris and pride does not extend to the point of believing that we know better than God and can speak out against events resulting in the chastizing of God. 

Again, with great concern of the future of Christianity in the hands of False Preachers, 

Steen


Interesting Quotes: 


I think abortion of a fetus is just as tragic as starvation of an infant.
-ChiefScalia-!
I don't know if God is a bigot. If He is, then bigotry is good.
-Keepyobaby-!
I don't see the problem with recognizing it {molar pregnancy} as life...it's not going to develope but it is still a conception and alive.
-K-Lynn, self-acknowledged fundie-!
By making [abortion] legal you force availability on them
-K-Lynn, self-acknowledged fundie-!
And frankly, even children who are beaten experience life. 
-ThatOrville-!
that makes the woman's function similar to that of a respirator or similar piece of machinery which acts as a method to sustain life.
-Cecil-!
no one has ever been denied a voice by me or anyone else on a board I've managed.
-David Byron-!
**Edited for dawn as she claimed never to hold that particular opinion** .
-Mrs. Write-! 



   
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Steen Goddik (sgoddik)   8/21/2001 2:49 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (47 of 84)  
 
  23.47 in reply to 23.30  
 
-- 
[D] God has already answered this question. Because God has permitted the Human race to continue in the existence of sin. God has determined that to Know Life and to Experience evil is better than to never live and never experience life. 
-- 
But God also ends nearly half of all "life" long before birth, even before implantation. Thus your statement does not seem to represent reality and does not seem to represent God's actions. Do you have any explanation as to why your statement does not match God's actions? Do you think God is wrong? 

Steen


Interesting Quotes: 


I think abortion of a fetus is just as tragic as starvation of an infant.
-ChiefScalia-!
I don't know if God is a bigot. If He is, then bigotry is good.
-Keepyobaby-!
I don't see the problem with recognizing it {molar pregnancy} as life...it's not going to develope but it is still a conception and alive.
-K-Lynn, self-acknowledged fundie-!
By making [abortion] legal you force availability on them
-K-Lynn, self-acknowledged fundie-!
And frankly, even children who are beaten experience life. 
-ThatOrville-!
that makes the woman's function similar to that of a respirator or similar piece of machinery which acts as a method to sustain life.
-Cecil-!
no one has ever been denied a voice by me or anyone else on a board I've managed.
-David Byron-!
**Edited for dawn as she claimed never to hold that particular opinion** .
-Mrs. Write-! 



   
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Steen Goddik (sgoddik)   8/21/2001 2:54 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (48 of 84)  
 
  23.48 in reply to 23.31  
 
As this person's information was wrong, and as NPR's guest's information was right, I see nothing wrong with their action. 
Steen


Interesting Quotes: 


I think abortion of a fetus is just as tragic as starvation of an infant.
-ChiefScalia-!
I don't know if God is a bigot. If He is, then bigotry is good.
-Keepyobaby-!
I don't see the problem with recognizing it {molar pregnancy} as life...it's not going to develope but it is still a conception and alive.
-K-Lynn, self-acknowledged fundie-!
By making [abortion] legal you force availability on them
-K-Lynn, self-acknowledged fundie-!
And frankly, even children who are beaten experience life. 
-ThatOrville-!
that makes the woman's function similar to that of a respirator or similar piece of machinery which acts as a method to sustain life.
-Cecil-!
no one has ever been denied a voice by me or anyone else on a board I've managed.
-David Byron-!
**Edited for dawn as she claimed never to hold that particular opinion** .
-Mrs. Write-! 



   
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Steen Goddik (sgoddik)   8/21/2001 2:59 pm  
To:  Dr_Shock   (49 of 84)  
 
  23.49 in reply to 23.33  
 
-- 
[S] Who knows what Vioxx or Protonix (the two medications I'm currently on) would do to a developing baby? 
-- 
Protonix is considered quite safe. Vioxx, on the other hand, is known to cause birth defects, both in animal studies and, more recently it has shown to cause birth defects in human fetuses as well. If you are pregnant, you must immediately switch to tylenol (acetaminophen) 

Sincerely, 

Steen


Interesting Quotes: 


I think abortion of a fetus is just as tragic as starvation of an infant.
-ChiefScalia-!
I don't know if God is a bigot. If He is, then bigotry is good.
-Keepyobaby-!
I don't see the problem with recognizing it {molar pregnancy} as life...it's not going to develope but it is still a conception and alive.
-K-Lynn, self-acknowledged fundie-!
By making [abortion] legal you force availability on them
-K-Lynn, self-acknowledged fundie-!
And frankly, even children who are beaten experience life. 
-ThatOrville-!
that makes the woman's function similar to that of a respirator or similar piece of machinery which acts as a method to sustain life.
-Cecil-!
no one has ever been denied a voice by me or anyone else on a board I've managed.
-David Byron-!
**Edited for dawn as she claimed never to hold that particular opinion** .
-Mrs. Write-! 



   
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Steen Goddik (sgoddik)   8/21/2001 3:02 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (50 of 84)  
 
  23.50 in reply to 23.39  
 
-- 
[D] I Stood by my original Posting and Now given the additional information I stand even More by this Posting. 
-- 
And I must stand by my observation that your original post is full of inaccuracies and do not show the truth about oral contraceptions and breast cancer. Perhaps you could address each of my points to show where you believe that I am mistaken? I certainly showed you the curtecy of doing this. 

Rather than having the appearance of being insulted by me disagreeing with you and pointing out that you are providing erroneous medical information, could you show me the curtecy of actually addressing my concerns? After all, if you stand by your post, you must be able to defend the statements I disagree with. 

But then, you say that your source is several pro-life sites. Unfortunately, I HAVE visited many of these sites. They nearly all of them are full of distortions, half-truths and outright dangerous lies. As such, any of these sites, whose very purpose for existence seems to be the bearing of false witness, does NOT bode well for the credibility of your claims. Now, do you have any of this additional "evidence" tha is in any way scientific in nature, rather than politically biased from these "pro-lie" sites? Do you haveANY evidence that actually is researched in an unbiased manner, the way general medical research is conducted? 

Steen 



Interesting Quotes: 


I think abortion of a fetus is just as tragic as starvation of an infant.
-ChiefScalia-!
I don't know if God is a bigot. If He is, then bigotry is good.
-Keepyobaby-!
I don't see the problem with recognizing it {molar pregnancy} as life...it's not going to develope but it is still a conception and alive.
-K-Lynn, self-acknowledged fundie-!
By making [abortion] legal you force availability on them
-K-Lynn, self-acknowledged fundie-!
And frankly, even children who are beaten experience life. 
-ThatOrville-!
that makes the woman's function similar to that of a respirator or similar piece of machinery which acts as a method to sustain life.
-Cecil-!
no one has ever been denied a voice by me or anyone else on a board I've managed.
-David Byron-!
**Edited for dawn as she claimed never to hold that particular opinion** .
-Mrs. Write-! 



  


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 8/21/2001 11:47:34 PM ET by SGODDIK 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  Steen Goddik (sgoddik)   8/21/2001 3:36 pm  
To:  Peg (ztagrl)    
 
    
 
-- 
[B] Actually, I personally using the Sympto-Thermal method, along with barriers during the fertile time. 
-- 
OK. I am familiar with it. 

-- 
[B] I personally prefer a little scientific data (ie temperature) to base my interpretation on, as well as the mucus observations. 
-- 

LOL. Yes. Absolute knowledge can be reassuring. :-) 

However, the temperature interpretations are rather vague and very succeptible to just about any variation in your health, diet, or environment. So you really have to know these factors and their implications. I think that is why the Creighton model is gaining such popularity here, despite its unfortunate level of unintended pregnancies. 

-- 
[B] However, I have never heard of an NFP user, who uses the most conservative rules, who has had an unplanned pregnancy 
-- 

The national statistics still runs around 3% failure per year. I have, unfortunately run into users where the unintended pregnancy has caused MAJOR distress and health concern. But obviously the patient's desires and beliefs come first in their selection of method. We as physicians can merely advice and provide accurate information. 

-- 
[B] In fact, I know of one user who has successfully avoided pregnancy for 7 years! If that's not testimony, I don't know what is! 
-- 

It is a testemony to that person's usage of the method. Of course, such testemonies are available for users of all types of birth control and even for those who use none. I had a woman in the clinic in the last year of medical school who was very upset that she had gotten pregnant, since she had not been pregnant the last 10 years without ANY type of birthcontrol whatsoever. She merely thought she could not be pregnant. Unfortunately for her peace of mind, she was wrong in her assumption. (luckily it turned out OK and she and her husband ended up becomming quite excited at the prospect). 

-- 
[B] Surely you are not suggesting that the pill is fail proof!! 
-- 

Not at all. Its "perfect use (same time every day. beginning on the 7th day of the period, no confounding medication, including herbs such as St Johnswort) and so on, has a pregnancy rate of 1% per year, and with general use, the pregnancy rate is 2-4% per year 

-- 
[B] You say that the pill is "safer", yet I don't prefer that terminology. I don't look at a child as a "danger" from which I need to be protected. 
-- 

OK, Poor choice of terminology. The pill causes relatively fewer unintended pregnancies that NFP, both in "perfect" and actual usage. That would be the correct way of stating it. 

Of course, many women DO see pregnancy as something to be protected from. Otherwise, we would not have any abortions. 

-- 
[B] In addition, I think that unplanned pregnancies occur by user error. 
-- 

Most do, but certainly not all. (Pls. refer to the numbers above regarding perfect and actual use) 

-- 
[B] a woman is likely to become pregnant when she ovulates. If she's already ovulated, she can most likely assume that she is infertile for the rest of that cycle. Of course, there is the situation of ovulating twice in one month, thus fraternal twins 
-- 

And there are several other exceptions as well, where the user can be following the "rules" perfectly and still be at risk. There are examples (very rare) of the ovum being sequestered in the fallopian tube for a while (kind of a mini-implantation. Also studied in rabbits) before being released into the uterus. 

Oh, and BTW, fraternal twins can also happen if either the egg divides before fertilization or if two viable egg are released from the ovary each cycle. 

Again, all these exceptions are rare. But to those who experience it, it sure can be a suprise. 

-- 
[B] You say that the pill thickens the mucus, "restricting sperm penerration into the cervix", yet you fail to mention the fact that some chemical methods, such as depo provera, actually thin the cervix lining, making it difficult for the egg to implant. 
-- 

Ah, yes. DP, of course, is not an oral contraceptive but rather an injectable one. Oral contraceptives ALSO thinb the lining of the uterus, just like DP does. The pill certainly prevents implantation as well, if its prevention of actual ovulation fails. 

-- 
[B] My defition of a life is indeed a fertilized egg. 
-- 

A point with which I strongly disagree. But that is neither here nor there. Discussing "when life begins" is frightfully unproductive as everybody can give examples and "scientific" claims one way or the other. It would be much more productive to discuss how to prevent unintended pregnancies in the first place, thus reducing the need for an abortion (sex ed, contraception, much better support to pregnant women and new families, just for starters, would drastically reduce the demand for abortion as the European experience shows us) 

-- 
[B] that make these fertilized eggs dislodge, or prevent from lodging, that is what I call abortion. 
-- 

In medicine, the first is known as abortion/miscarriage. The second one is merely known as "failure of implantation." It is not considered abortion or miscarriage. 

That is probably an important point to be aware off if you are going to discuss this with a physician in any way. The physician might not speak the saME "language" as you do on this topic, so be sure to ask wjat is meant with the terminology used, and if your special concerns are an issue in any way with ANY of the medication you receive )other types of medication can also cause this). 

-- 
[B] The bottom line is that I before a natural method to a chemical one. 
-- 

That, in my book, is all that matters. Good luck. 

Sincerely, 

Steen


Interesting Quotes: 


I think abortion of a fetus is just as tragic as starvation of an infant.
-ChiefScalia-!
I don't know if God is a bigot. If He is, then bigotry is good.
-Keepyobaby-!
I don't see the problem with recognizing it {molar pregnancy} as life...it's not going to develope but it is still a conception and alive.
-K-Lynn, self-acknowledged fundie-!
By making [abortion] legal you force availability on them
-K-Lynn, self-acknowledged fundie-!
And frankly, even children who are beaten experience life. 
-ThatOrville-!
that makes the woman's function similar to that of a respirator or similar piece of machinery which acts as a method to sustain life.
-Cecil-!
no one has ever been denied a voice by me or anyone else on a board I've managed.
-David Byron-!
**Edited for dawn as she claimed never to hold that particular opinion** .
-Mrs. Write-! 



 
From:  Dr_Shock   8/21/2001 10:43 pm  
To:  Steen Goddik (sgoddik)   (52 of 84)  
 
  23.52 in reply to 23.49  
 
<<<Protonix is considered quite safe. Vioxx, on the other hand, is known to cause birth defects, both in animal studies and, more recently it has shown to cause birth defects in human fetuses as well. If you are pregnant, you must immediately switch to tylenol (acetaminophen)>>> 
The American FDA rarely does thorough studies on some of the new medications put out by the large drug companies. Look at all the chlestroal lowering medications which have been taken off the market in the past year. Look at Phen-fen. Even a drug as "harmless" as Protonix needs to be studied to its fullest extent before its marketed. However, in the end it comes down to a matter of who paies who off to get the drug FDA approved the quickest. The PDR side effects listed for Protonix are inaccurate. Nowhere did my doctor, the PDR or the little drug information slip from Walgreens tell me that Protonix interacts with some antihistimines to cause potentially fatal reactions in some humans. I was in the ER a few weeks ago because of this and it wasn't the first time the doctors had seen this reaction. Apparantly, its a fluke that occurs about one out of thousand times when the two chemicals are combined. Still, no one ever did research on it just because the first and second generation acid supressant drugs never had this problem. 

Vioxx doesn't list potential birth defects as a side effect, either, except for a brief "maybe" in the PDR. Nowhere have I seen any readily avaliable information telling me or anyone else on the medication not to become pregnant while taking it (not that I plan to, thats what the Depo shot is for). So many doctors these days are sponsored by the drug companies and appear to be more concerned with pushing pills onto people rather then doing their job as healers. 

Let me put it this way; How many people out there know that Zoloft and other anti depressants in the same drug family are chemically identical to crack cocain or only one carbon chain off from methamphetamine? I don't even think the doctors are aware of this half the time.


-The Mad Dr. Shock
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
From:  David (DavidABrown)    9/6/2001 8:23 am  
To:  ALL    
 
    
 
From:  The Pro-Life Infonet http://prolifeinfo.org
Reply-To:  Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:   Redbook Misrepresents Abortion-Breast Cancer Link
Source:   Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer Press Release; September 6,
2001

Redbook Misrepresents Abortion-Breast Cancer Link

Chicago, IL -- A women's group today accused Redbook of misrepresenting
research associating breast cancer with induced abortion and the birth
control pill in an article published in its September, 2001 issue by Nancy
Monson called, "Seven cancer facts you need to know now."

Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer said,
"It's strange that Dr. Mitchell Creinin of the University of Pittsburgh
and Dr. Andrew Kaunitz of the University of Florida denied that abortion
and oral contraceptives cause breast cancer.  Medical experts agree that
breast cancer risk is increased significantly each year that a first full
term pregnancy (FFTP) is postponed.  This glaring omission of the facts
reveals their ideological bent."

"We're not surprised," said Mrs. Malec "that these experts would deny that
the pill and abortion cause breast cancer.  Kaunitz led nationwide
clinical trials to bring Lunelle, a new birth control method, to the
marketplace. Creinin researched the use of ultrasound to determine the
effectiveness of mifepristone and misoprostol (RU-486) for abortion.
Many researchers are profiting from sales of contraceptives and
abortions."

Dr. Chris Kahlenborn, author of the book, Breast Cancer: Its Link to
Abortion and the Birth Control Pill, discussed the Oxford study which was
cited by Kaunitz as evidence that there is no link between the pill and
breast cancer.  [p. 32] Kahlenborn reported that the study had two
significant weaknesses: 1) It failed to determine the consequence of using
the pill during the most dangerous time in a woman's life -- before a
FFTP; and 2) It failed to provide for a sufficient latent period which
would allow for time to elapse between exposure to the pill and the
development of tumors. [Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast
Cancer.  "Breast cancer and hormonal contraceptives: further results,"
Contraception (1996) 34: S1-S106]

Kahlenborn cited studies demonstrating a 40% increased risk of breast
cancer among women who use the pill before a FFTP and a 72% increased
incidence among women who use the pill for four or more years before a
FFTP.  He added that using the pill for a prolonged period, 4 years or
more, at any time during a woman's life increases breast cancer risk. [p.
36-37]

Apart from the effect of postponing a FFTP, 28 out of 37 studies published
since 1957 have independently linked abortion with breast cancer, but only
two studies were mentioned in the Redbook article.

Malec continued, "According to Dr. Edison Liu of the National Cancer
Institute, One study does not make a conclusion.' In his discussion of the
abortion-breast cancer (ABC) research, Creinin relied on a single study to
deny an ABC link, the 1997 Melbye study, although 28 studies call for the
opposite conclusion.  Creinin ignored the fact that even Melbye reported
that [w]ith each one week increase in the gestational age of the
fetus...there was a 3 percent increase in the risk of breast cancer.'"
[Melbye et al. (1997) NEJM 336:81-5].

Malec cited a different prospective study conducted in New York which was
ignored by Creinin.  The 1989 Howe study reported a statistically
significant 90% increased risk of breast cancer.  Such a study depends
upon medical records for its data, not interviews.  As such, it rules out
any possibility of recall bias, errors allegedly occurring due to faulty
reporting by women. [Howe et al. (1989) Int J Epidemiol 18:300-4] "Creinin
argued that recall bias is an explanation for the remaining 27 studies
showing a positive association; but several groups of scientists have
sought evidence of this phenomenon and none has ever proven that it
exists. Nevertheless, Creinin considers recall bias theory a fact," said
Malec.

Melbye was jettisoned by its own publisher, The New England Journal of
Medicine, three years after its publication. "Had Drs. Creinin and Kaunitz
properly researched these issues," said Mrs. Malec, "they would have
learned that the NEJM published an article identifying abortion and oral
contraceptives as possible risk factors.'" [Armstrong (2000) NEJM
342:564-71]

Malec reported that "Creinin's misrepresentations closely follow Planned
Parenthood's portrayal of the ABC research."  Planned Parenthood is being
sued by three women in California Superior Court.  The suit alleges that
Planned Parenthood makes "confusing, false, and misleading representations
concerning the safety of abortion."  The plaintiffs seek an injunction to
compel Planned Parenthood to: 1) Accurately represent the research to its
patients; 2) Prohibit it from making untrue or misleading statements...
that abortion is safe and/or that it is safer than childbirth;' and 3)
Inform its patients who'd procured abortions at its California facilities
of their increased risk of breast cancer." [Agnes Bernardo, et al v.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Planned Parenthood of San
Diego and Riverside Counties]

"Doctors should be cautious about representing abortion as a safe
procedure," advised Malec.  "The California suit is the second in the
country for false advertising, and a personal injury suit was filed in
Pennsylvania because of a physician's failure to inform his patient about
the breast cancer risk.  It is reprehensible that American scientists have
struggled to cover-up the link for 44 years.  We invite women to visit our
website at www.AbortionBreastCancer.com for documentation of this
cover-up."

Malec concluded her comments saying, "As a cancer survivor, I am deeply
disturbed by the Byzantine and egregious efforts of the abortion industry
and its supporters in organized medicine to conceal the facts, just as the
tobacco industry covered up a link between tobacco and cancer.  If experts
like Redbook's would only honestly represent the evidence of an ABC link,
then women who've had abortions could take risk reduction drugs (such as
tamoxifen and raloxifene), and they'd be motivated to seek early detection
of the disease.  Tragically, women will depend on Creinin's and Kaunitz's
statements, and many will suffer and lose their lives because Redbook
failed in its obligation to disseminate the truth.

We, therefore, demand from Redbook an immediate and prominent retraction
of the article and a new article containing an honest portrayal of the ABC
research.  Redbook's readers have a right to know the truth, and the
magazine has a social responsibility to provide it."

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women's
organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by
educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for
breast cancer.

Pro-Life Infonet Action Alert:  You can contact Redbook using the
following online form located at:
http://redbook.women.com/rb/misc/00mail11.htm

--
Pregnancy Centers Online
http://www.pregnancycenters.org


 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
From:  David (DavidABrown)    9/9/2001 5:11 pm  
To:  ALL   (54 of 84)  
 
  23.54 in reply to 23.1  
 
From:  The Pro-Life Infonet http://www.prolifeinfo.org
Reply-To:  Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:   Abortion-Breast Cancer Trial in ND Begins Tuesday
Source:   Diocese of Fargo (ND), LLDF; September 7, 2001

Abortion-Breast Cancer Trial in ND Begins Tuesday

Fargo, ND -- The trial for the false advertising lawsuit brought against a
Fargo abortion facility has been set for Tuesday, Sept. 11. The lawsuit
says that a brochure handed out to women considering abortions claimed
there is no evidence linking abortion and breast cancer and claims
abortion is 10 times safer than childbirth.

The plaintiff, Amy Jo Mattson, filed the lawsuit against the Red River
Womens Clinic abortion facility in December 1999 on behalf of the general
public, as permitted by North Dakota law. The lawsuit does not seek
monetary damages, since the plaintiff does not allege that she herself has
been personally misled or harmed by the brochures. Rather, the lawsuit
seeks on behalf of the general public a court order enjoining the abortion
facility from continuing to state or imply that medical research does not
support the abortion-breast cancer link.

In addition, the plaintiff is asking the court to require the abortion
facility to disclose to women considering abortion two facts she believes
are critical for informed decision-making:  a first full-term pregnancy
before age 30 is protective against breast cancer in later life and most
studies show that having an abortion at any age increases the risk of
breast cancer in later life.

Attorneys Gregory Lange of Hazen, ND, and John Kindley of South Bend, IN
represent the plaintiff. Kindley is the author of an article published in
1999 by the University of Wisconsin on legal liability arising from
failure to disclose the abortion-breast cancer link.

The clinic's pamphlet states: "A substantial body of medical research
indicates that there is no established link between abortion and breast
cancer.  In fact, the National Cancer Institute has stated, '[t]here is no
evidence of a direct relationship between breast cancer and either induced
or spontaneous abortion."  Attorney John Kindley's position at trial will
be that the pamphlet intentionally quotes from an outdated statement by
the National Cancer Institute.

Kindley says, "withholding this information from women considering
abortion is medical malpractice."

Dr. Joel Brind, an endocrinologist at the City University of New York,
will testify for the plantif. He is also the lead author of a 1996
"comprehensive review and meta-analysis" of the worldwide medical
literature on the abortion-breast cancer link published by the British
Medical Association.

According to Brind, the link between abortion and breast cancer is
explained by the hormonal disruption that occurs when a womens pregnancy
is artificially terminated.

"During the first two trimesters of pregnancy, the breasts undergo a
growth spurt and an explosive proliferation of cells caused by sharply
increased production of the female hormone estrogen. Thus the breasts
contain more and more undifferentiated, cancer vulnerable cells as the
pregnancy progresses," Brind said.

"The third trimester normally sees these cells differentiate into
milk-producing cells, cells that are less vulnerable to carcinogens.
Abortion thus robs a woman of the natural protection against breast cancer
that a full-term pregnancy provides, and moreover increases her risk
beyond what it would have been, had she not gotten pregnant at all."

The Life Legal Defense Foundation is assisting trial attorney, John
Kindley, with funding for this case.  LLDF is a non-profit public interest
group that provides funding and legal services for abortion-related cases.

"It's about time someone exposes the myth that abortion is safer than
childbirth.  Women should know that the increasing ABC rate is directly
related to the 'family planning' industry's love affair with abortion,"
states Dana Cody, attorney with LLDF.

The case is Mattson v. Red River Women's Clinic.

--
The Pro-Life Infonet is a daily compilation of pro-life news and
information. To subscribe, send the message "subscribe" to:
infonet-request@prolifeinfo.org. Infonet is sponsored by Women and
Children First (http://www.womenandchildrenfirst.org). For more pro-life
info visit http://www.prolifeinfo.org and for questions or additional
information email ertelt@prolifeinfo.org
-





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Walt (binacontenda)   9/12/2001 4:35 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (55 of 84)  
 
  23.55 in reply to 23.54  
 
Your problem is that you have admitted that you still "stand by" and accept material which Steen has taken much time and effort to demonstrate is false. 
The claims and "facts" you use to support your view have been clearly falsified, in detail. It is blatantly obvious that the source of your material was either simply lying or was just terribly ignorant. 

And yet, you continue to accept it. How do you expect to have any credibility at all? Why do you want to keep saying something that you now know isn't true? Is it okay to "tell lies for Jesus"? 

Your attitude and views about this issue are part of the reason that Christians are often viewed as offensive, dishonest, crazed zealots disconnected from reality. 

If I were you, I would make a decision to pursue accuracy in issues like this, instead of just repeating what you think is "Biblical." Make the decision to be honest, and to make sure what you say is actually true - examine it for flaws and inaccuracy, and check the validity of the opposing view. 

There are research methods for checking the accuracy of a source and evaluating a position based on knowledge available. If you don't know about that, as I would guess you don't, then go back to school, and meanwhile stop claiming to know anything about the issue. 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    9/12/2001 4:51 pm  
To:  Walt (binacontenda)   (56 of 84)  
 
  23.56 in reply to 23.55  
 
When I examined the Breast Cancer Material and Information it quickly became apparent that Breast Cancer is an Epidemic in America. Beast Cancer is mostly a Modern day Epidemic and it is mostly an Epidemic only in Nations such as America and Europe that distribute the Pill and practice abortion on demand.

 

To me the case of correlation between breast cancer, the pill and abortion, has been made.

 

From your post it almost seemed like you dont think breast cancer exists or that it is not a problem in America right now.

 

If you dont think breast cancer exists I can see why you wouldnt believe the studies. But you gave absolutely no indication of what you think are the causes or the cures for breast cancer. Perhaps in your next post you can offer Solutions instead of just making accusations and allegations.





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Walt (binacontenda)   9/12/2001 5:09 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (57 of 84)  
 
  23.57 in reply to 23.56  
 
Look, ****, I didn't say breast cancer doesn't exist or isn't a problem, you're just trying to change the subject, which is a dishonest tactic. 
The subject of Steen's posts and mine, has been the apparent dishonesty and certain fallacy of your material. 

Re."Perhaps in your 
next post you can offer Solutions instead of just making accusations and allegations." 

It's not necessary for me to cure breast cancer to know that your material was false. But I do offer a very important solution for the damaging misinformation and lies you spread, by exposing them. 

When science, by way of analogy, revealed that the religious and supernatural cures for various diseases were false and dangerous lies, it did offer a very significant solution. You may realize that medicine has improved since the Middle Ages. 

Your material was full of flaw, fallacy, and apparent dishonesty. Therefore, if you have any personal integrity or don't wish to "bear false witness," you will abandon those claims. 

Are you even interested in presenting accurate, truthful material? It doesn't seem so. 

The honest, "Christian" response to such accusations by the other poster would be to ask for verification and pursue the matter of finding the truth. And if you find that you are wrong, then go and sin no more. But that was not your response, was it? 

By the way, the only scientific reason that your Christian sources claim a link between abortion and breast cancer is this: childbirth produces some effects that can reduce the risk of breast cancer. 

So abortion does not cause it, but childbirth can reduce risk. Do you understand the difference? 

Of course, other things besides childbirth can reduce risk as well. So the indirect and tentative childbirth - breast cancer link is not a reason to carry an unwanted pregnancy to full term. 




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 9/12/01 8:14:41 PM ET by BINACONTENDA 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 9/13/2001 11:33:33 AM ET by DAVIDABROWN 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    9/17/2001 9:54 am  
To:  ALL   (58 of 84)  
 
  23.58 in reply to 23.57  
 
From:  The Pro-Life Infonet http://www.prolifeinfo.org
Reply-To:  Steven Ertelt infonet@prolifeinfo.org
Subject:   The Post-Abortion Coverup
Source:   Focus on the Family Citizen; September 2001

The Post-Abortion Coverup
By Jenny Tyree

[Jenny Tyree is a freelance writer in Colorado Springs, Colorado]

There are some who claim that most women who abort their children do not
suffer. Ms. magazine makes such a claim in its September issue saying that
post-abortion stress (PAS) is a "made-up term" and a "bogus infliction
invented by the religious right." Planned Parenthood liked the article so
much that it appeared on the main page of the group's Web site.

To whom are abortion advocates listening?

Not to Carrie Gordon Earll, bioethics analyst for Focus on the Family.
"Having an abortion is not like having your tonsils removed," Earll said.
"A woman is forever changed by pregnancy regardless of how that pregnancy
ends."

Not to Teri Reisser, author of A Solitary Sorrow: Finding Healing and
Wholeness After Abortion, and a therapist who, with her husband, has
counseled hundreds of post-abortive women.

Not to Julie Parton, manager of Focus on the Family's Crisis Pregnancy
ministry. "PAS affects women regardless of cultural setting and religious
background," Parton said. "Abortion violates the natural maternal instinct
of a mother wanting to protect her offspring."

And not, apparently, to many women who have experienced abortion.
Although the Ms.article gives statistics and cites studies to support
their theory, the greater evidence says that abortion not only kills an
unborn child, but also hurts the women those advocates seek to help.

Abortion advocates point to the fact that neither the American
Psychological Association (APA) nor the American Psychiatric Association
identify PAS as a diagnosis. They also cite the independent studies of
Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and the APA in the late 1980s, and the
conclusion of both that abortion did not contribute to psychological
problems in women.

Another study conducted by Brenda Major at the University of California at
Santa Barbara in August 2000 is singled out as further research supporting
this theory. The Major study found that only one percent of post-abortive
women suffered extreme psychological distress. This study also reported
that the greatest emotion women experienced after abortion was relief.

There is, however, information that has been overlooked by the Ms. article
and abortion advocates. Reisser said the process by which the American
Psychiatric Association adds a diagnosis to the body of disorders is
notoriously slow. The process is even slower when an issue is politically
charged.

In addition, the reports made by the Surgeon General and the American
Psychological Association both acknowledged the fact that most of the
studies used to draw their conclusions were flawed scientifically.
Furthermore, while many pro-life authorities agree that relief is the
strongest emotion experienced immediately following an abortion, Earll
said the Major study also found that as time passed the women surveyed had
an increased dissatisfaction with their abortion decision, and an increase
in negative emotions.

More recent statistics reflect troubling information for abortion
advocates who would champion the cause of women's emotional and physical
health.

In Finland, researchers identified suicide rates among aborted women were
higher (35 percent) than women who gave birth (six percent).

According to research in The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse,
women who abort their first pregnancy are five times more likely to report
subsequent substance abuse than women who gave birth, and four times more
likely than women whose pregnancies ended through miscarriage or
stillbirth.

In the United States, 13 out of 14 studies found more breast cancer among American women who had chosen abortion. The link between the two is so strong that The New England Journal of Medicine listed abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.

The Ms. article does relate the testimony of some women, but once again
seems to neglect the whole truth. Words such as "sadness," "grief, "
"regret," "loss," and "guilt" are listed as emotions experienced by women
after abortion, but they are not attributed to the death of a child.
Instead, abortion advocates say women are recovering from making the
abortion decision, grieving the loss of another relationship, or perhaps
suffering from the stress induced by "antiabortion movement" protesters.

"You would think that abortion advocates who claim to be pro-woman would
want women who were hurt or injured by abortion to have access to
information to help them," Earll said. "With this article, the
pro-abortion extremists show their true colors: they're more committed to
a political agenda than to women."

Women who have experienced the pain of an abortion can find a friend to
talk to at http://www.pregnancycenters.org. Click on "Help After
Abortion."

 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  CreamC   9/21/2001 6:53 pm  
To:  Dr_Shock unread  (59 of 84)  
 
  23.59 in reply to 23.52  
 
[edit]: Well, immediately after posting this, david again blocked my access. However, as I have not loged off yet, I can still edit. David apparently does NOT like Christians with views differeing from his and thus ban or gag Christians SOLELY because he disagree with them. This is, of course, a gross violation of delphi and about policies. 
It is also cowardly and pathetic. Apparently, david's arguments can not withstand evidence to the contrary, and thus he seek to ban people instead. And when it is PROVEN that he is bearing false witness in direct contradiction to what the Lord bids us, his reply is .. yes, you all guessed it, he bans the one exposing him as the lying sinner he is. 

So if everybody wonder about why david never seem to have much opposition to his claims, it is likely because he bans people who disagree. 

Steen 
[END EDIT] 

Hi. Sorry that I didn't get back to you earlier, but it looks like David banned be earlier because I was providing evidence of his false claims that he could not refute. So I can no longer log in under sgoddik. Don't let this confuse you :-) 

-- 
[DS] he American FDA rarely does thorough studies on some of the new medications put out by the large drug companies. Look at all the chlestroal lowering medications which have been taken off the market in the past year. 
-- 

Actually, the studies required go through many stages and run around 10+ years. Only about 3-6% of drugs actually makes it to market. It is when it hits the market and is taken by millions of people rather than thousand of people that you run into some exceptions that were not caught earlier. In the case of Baycol, it is a total of 36 people WORDLWIDE that showed up with the fatal muscle wasting. That is out of many millions of people taking it. And many more people are saved by by the "statin" drugs than have suffered adverse efffects. 

-- 
[DS] Look at Phen-fen. 
-- 

Which was not a FDA approved prescription drug. When people take "remedies" and potions, they run their risks of NOT having the Government tests to back them up. 

-- 
[DS] However, in the end it comes down to a matter of who paies who off to get the drug FDA approved the quickest. 
-- 

Really? So what happens to the 95% of the drugs that E.I.Lilly, for example, research and which never make it to market? Does that mean that Lilly didn't pay enough? Or merely that the drug trials that ALL prescription medication goes through actually are rather safe? 

After all, nobody force you to take ANY medication. Remember that they ALL went through the process. And note that Americans go out and spend about 1/3rd of the "medicine" budget on alternative remedies and therapies that have not been studied and not been evaluated for safety AT ALL. And yet there are complains about prescription drugs???? 

-- 
[DS] I was in the ER a few weeks ago because of this and it wasn't the first time the doctors had seen this reaction. Apparantly, its a fluke that occurs about one out of thousand times when the two chemicals are combined. 
-- 

And the ER physician has a duty to report this if it is something he/she can recognize as a reoccurance. Whiuch means that it is being researched and evaluated and will show up in a future PDR. No, you can not predict everything. If you insist on absolute safety in ingesting anything, you better stop eating and taking any kind of medication whatsoever. 

-- 
[DS] Vioxx doesn't list potential birth defects as a side effect, either, except for a brief "maybe" in the PDR. 
-- 

Vioxx works through suppression of the "cyclooxygenase" enzyme ("COX-Inhibitor) The older types (advil, naprosyn etc) targeted both cox enzymes (cox-1 and cox-2). The new forms (vioxx and Celebrex) target mainly cox-2 while not (or only slightly) cox-1 which is found in the stomach and duodenum. 

The old types ARE known to induce some birth defects. I haveseen no reliable data showing that Cox-2 inhibitors don't hare this trait. 

That is why OB physicians (and others) recommend using only tylenol/acetaminophen during pregnancy. It has been aropund for a long time and has withstod the test of time. It has shown itself to be SAFE for fever and aches during pregnancy. 

-- 
[DS] Nowhere have I seen any readily avaliable information telling me or anyone else on the medication not to become pregnant while taking it (not that I plan to, thats what the Depo shot is for) 
-- 

Correct. However, during 2nd and 3rd trimester cox inhibitors can be a problem. So it is not dangerous to become pregnant on them, but there are fetal risks from continue their use during pregnancy. 

-- 
[DS] So many doctors these days are sponsored by the drug companies 
-- 

I wish. Where do I sign up? :-) 

Drug reps might do agressive marketing and some doctors do indeed take travels and conventions at luxury hotels and such. However, there are NO physicians valuing their medical licence who take any kind of payment from drug companies. 

-- 
[DS} and appear to be more concerned with pushing pills onto people rather then doing their job as healers. 
-- 

If medication works and you can help 20 people a day rather than do intensive "healing" to 4 people a day, where do you think society's investment in the medical education is maximized? 

-- 
[DS] Let me put it this way; How many people out there know that Zoloft and other anti depressants in the same drug family are chemically identical to crack cocain 
-- 

I hope nobody "know" this. Exactly WHAT do you mean with the same drug "family"? And it certainly is NOT identical to crack. That is pure nonsense. Otehrwise you would see a LOT more addicts show up to get SSRI prescription. This is pure nonsense. 

-- 
[DS] or only one carbon chain off from methamphetamine? 
-- 

It is probably one carbon chain away for a few hundred thousand compounds. If you knew anything about organic chemistry, you would know that a carbon chain can completely change a compound. A carbon chain is a MAJOR difference in chemistry. 

-- 
[DS} I don't even think the doctors are aware of this half the time. 
-- 

We are aware of what matters, including that zoloft is NOT crack Cocaine. 

Steen 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 9/21/01 11:59:59 PM ET by CREAMC 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  bromd   9/22/2001 9:42 am  
To:  CreamC unread  (60 of 84)  
 
  23.60 in reply to 23.59  
 
Um... David please don't delete this. You can gag me after this if you'd like but I don't want to be banned. I like reading the forum. I promise I'll keep it short. =) 
-I hope nobody "know" this. Exactly WHAT do you mean with the same drug "family"? And it certainly is NOT identical to crack. That is pure nonsense. Otehrwise you would see a LOT more addicts show up to get SSRI prescription. This is pure nonsense.- 

Most SSRI addicts, unable to have their prescriptions refilled, turn to street stumulants to satisfy their cravings. According to recent DARE studies do you know how many kids out there had their first drug experience by snorting Ridilan or Zoloft? If these prescription drugs have no addiction potential, then why do people go through visible withdrawl when they quit them and why does NA have a spacific program geared towards people addicted to prescription medications? Cocane and its freebases all act upon the brain like many of the SSRIs on the market. The side effects and withdrawl symptoms between Coca alkaloids and most legit SSRIs are also pretty much the same. There has even been some evidence, still in research, that babies born when the mother on Zolof suffer some of the same problems but to a lesser extent that crack babies do. However most doctors take pregnant women off of zoloft. 

-It is probably one carbon chain away for a few hundred thousand compounds. If you knew anything about organic chemistry, you would know that a carbon chain can completely change a compound. A carbon chain is a MAJOR difference in chemistry.- 

While this is mostly true, I suggest you consult your text books again. Mostly one carbon chain only makes a minor difference in chemistry as long as the molecular placement is all pretty much the same. Amphetamine is only one carbon chain off from Methamphetamine which is what I think Shock was trying to get at and amphetamines are still widly prescribed although they have a high addiction potential. More of the chemical's properties have to do not with the carbon as much as it does with the atom's actual "directional placement" in the chemical. For example, dextromethorphan hbr, the active chemical in most cough syrups, is chemically identical to one specific opiate. However, unlike the opiate in question (whose name I can't recall at the moment) dextromethorphan is a mirror image with everything in the same place on a 3-D level however at opposite angles. Both dextromethorphan and opiates are wonderful cough suppresants and both have high addiction potentials although the main difference between the two is that one produces euphoria while the other is considered a dissociative anesthetic not unlike Ketamine (Ketset) and Phencyclidine (PCP). But, although dextromethorphan is neither opiate or cyclohexamine it has discernable charaistics of both and is quite legal while its counterparts are scheduled substances. 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  David (DavidABrown)    10/8/2001 8:02 am  
To:  ALL    
 
    
 
Subject:   Breast Cancer Awareness Month Must Include Abortion Link (Correlation)

Source:   Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer; October 4, 2001

 

Breast Cancer Awareness Month Must Include Abortion Link (Correlation)

 

Palos Heights, IL -- As the country focuses on breast cancer awareness

during the month of October, one organization points out that abortion as

a cause of breast cancer must be included.

 

Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, said,

"As of this date, 28 out of 37 worldwide studies published since 1957 have

shown a positive association between abortion and breast cancer.

Seventeen studies are statistically significant, 16 of which found

increased risk.  A 1996 review and meta-analysis of 23 studies determined

that 18 studies found increased risk."

 

"The review reported a 30% increased risk for the general population."

[Brind et al. (1996) J Epidemiol Community Health 50:481-96]

 

Mrs. Malec added that, "October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month.  We

sincerely hope that the media will inform women of all of the risk factors

for breast cancer this month, including abortion.  Our teenagers are

especially at grave risk for breast cancer when they procure abortions.

Dr. Janet Daling and her colleagues determined in their 1994 study

commissioned by the National Cancer Institute that women who have

abortions before the age of 18 more than double their risk of breast

cancer.  Even more ominously, individuals in this group have an

incalculably high risk of breast cancer if they procure abortions and have

a family history of the disease.  In the Daling study, all 12 women with

these characteristics were diagnosed with breast cancer by the age of 45."

[Daling et al. (1994) J Natl Cancer Inst 86:1584-92]

 

A medical text entitled, The Breast, and the 1988 Henderson lecture

published in the journal, Cancer Research, acknowledge the link between

abortion and breast cancer.  The medical text discusses the causes of

breast cancer and states that exposure of the breasts to estrogen for long

periods of time proportionately increases breast cancer risk.  It

specifically identifies abortion as a risk factor.  It says, "Long-term

exposure to endogenous estrogens (early menarche; late menopause; late age

at first full-term pregnancy; and being overweight, leading to increased

aromatization of circulating androgens to estrogens) appears to increase

cancer risk.  Risk is decreased with early menopause (natural or

artificial) and childbearing.  However, first-trimester abortion increases

risk."  Emphasis added [Robert B. Dickson, Ph.D., Marc E. Lippman, M.D.,

"Growth Regulation of Normal and Malignant Breast Epithelium," The Breast:

Comprehensive Management of Benign and Malignant Diseases, edited by Kirby

I. Bland, M.D. and Edward M. Copeland III, M.D.; (1998) W. B. Saunders

Company; 2nd edition; Vol. 1, p. 519]

 

The medical text cited the Henderson lecture to support its statement that

"first-trimester abortion increases risk."  Henderson said, "Recently, we

found that a first-trimester abortion, whether spontaneous or induced,

before the first full-term pregnancy is actually associated with an

increase in the risk of breast cancer." [Henderson, B.E., Ross, R.,

Bernstein, L.; "Estrogens as a cause of human cancer,"  The Richard and

Hinda Rosenthal Foundation Award Lecture, University of Southern

California School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California; Cancer Res

48:246-253, 1988]

 

The Henderson statement asserting that abortion is linked with increased

breast cancer risk was based on only two studies, the first of which

Henderson co-authored and was the first American study.  [Pike, M.C.,

Henderson, B.E., Casagrande, J.T., et al. "Oral contraceptive use and

early abortion as risk factors for breast cancer in young women," Br. J.

Cancer (1981) 43: 72-76; and Hadjimichael, O.C., Boyle, C.A., and Meigs,

J.W. "Abortion before first live birth and risk of breast cancer," Br. J.

Cancer (1986) 53:281-284]

 

--

The Pro-Life Infonet is a daily compilation of pro-life news and

information. To subscribe, send the message "subscribe" to:

infonet-request@prolifeinfo.org. Infonet is sponsored by Women and

Children First (http://www.womenandchildrenfirst.org). For more pro-life

info visit http://www.prolifeinfo.org and for questions or additional

information email ertelt@prolifeinfo.org

 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
From:  David (DavidABrown)    10/23/2001 8:41 am  
To:  ALL   (62 of 84)  
 
  23.62 in reply to 23.58  
 
Subject:   Doctor Says Education Needed on Abortion-Breast Cancer Link
Source:   St. Louis Post-Dispatch; October 21, 2001

Doctor Says Education Needed on Abortion-Breast Cancer Link

St. Louis, MO -- A physician who specializes in breast health asked a
gathering of pro-life advocates Sunday to join a grass-roots movement to
educate about the link between breast cancer and abortion.

Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, a New York-based physician, made her comments at
the 25th annual Archdiocesan Pro-Life Convention on Sunday at the
Millennium Hotel downtown.

The need for a grass-roots effort involving laypersons, she explained, is
due to a reluctance by academicians to disseminate information on the
subject, whether that's because they refuse to believe there is a link or
they "don't want to be involved in this topic."

Lanfranchi said there is evidence showing that women who have abortions,
especially in their younger years, have a greater risk of developing
breast cancer. Meanwhile, she said, carrying a pregnancy to full term
lowers breast cancer risk. The purported link involves estrogen levels
that occur naturally during pregnancy and the effect that abortion has on
those levels.

Though abortion doesn't present an overwhelming risk, she acknowledged,
"abortion is a completely avoidable risk factor."

Lanfranchi said 13 out of 15 U.S. studies show an increased risk of
developing breast cancer in women who have had abortions. But pro-abortion
activists claim any such link is bogus.

An area official of Planned Parenthood claims that at least two dozen
studies have examined such a link and determined there was none. The
National Cancer Institute and high-profile medical societies similarly
have dismissed any link, though such dismissals have been blamed on
politics, not science.

Lanfranchi stands by her belief.

In 1999, she confronted a doctor who did not mention abortion during a
talk on breast cancer risks. "What she said to me on the phone is, 'Look,
abortion is a risk factor, it's not really a big one ... but I don't
choose to talk about it,'" Lanfranchi recalled.

Such reactions prompted Lanfranchi to establish the Breast Cancer
Prevention Institute in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., about three years ago. Through
the organization, she has been able to study whether there is a link and
get the word out on her findings and those of others.

She said the information should not be used as a "club" to batter women
who have had abortions but rather, as a tool to help them avoid a risk.

"It's a woman's right to know," said Lanfranchi, who advised her audience
members to pray about the subject. "It's only right that a woman be
informed of this risk."

--
The Pro-Life Infonet is a daily compilation of pro-life news and
information. To subscribe, send the message "subscribe" to:
infonet-request@prolifeinfo.org. Infonet is sponsored by Women and
Children First http://www.womenandchildrenfirst.org For more pro-life
info visit http://www.prolifeinfo.org and for questions or additional
information email ertelt@prolifeinfo.org






David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    1/21/2002 8:31 pm  
To:  ALL   (63 of 84)  
 
  23.63 in reply to 23.61  
 
Subject:  British Scientists:  Abortion Doubles Breast Cancer Risk
Source:   The Age (England); December 4, 2001

British Scientists:  Abortion Doubles Breast Cancer Risk

London, England -- Women who have had an abortion are up to twice as
likely to suffer from breast cancer, British scientists said today.

In the first study of its kind in Britain, researchers said the risk of
breast cancer is significantly increased if a woman has undergone an
abortion.

The study, which looked at breast cancer and abortion rates in Britain,
Finland, Sweden and the Czech Republic, draws a direct link between rising
cases of breast cancer and an increase in abortion since it was legalized.

The research, by the Populations and Pensions Research Institution, an
independent group of statisticians, suggests that up to 50 percent of
breast cancer cases in England and Wales over the next 26 years will be
"attributable to abortion".

Launching the study, which was funded by the pro-life organiation Life,
Professor Joel Brind of New York's City University and director of the
Breast Cancer Prevention Institute in New York, pointed out it was
intellectually watertight.

He said: "Women are at risk and they do not really know about it. They
certainly don't seem to be finding out about it from the NHS."

"This implicates a risk factor that is a matter of choice," Brind
explained. "Simply undergoing [an abortion] once measurably increases the
risk of breast cancer. We are talking about thousands of cases of breast
cancer over the next twenty years. This is a very sobering statistic."

Researcher and author Patrick Carroll said the total number of breast
cancer cases is expected to more than double in England from 35,110 in
1997 to 77,000 in 2023. The rise was largely because of abortions carried
out on women who have not yet had a baby, Carroll said.

"Breast cancer incidence has risen ... in parallel with rising abortion
rates. There is no doubt there is a causal relationship," he said.

"Perhaps as many as 50 percent of these cases will be attributable to
abortion and unless there is a major improvement in treatment, the number
of women who die from the disease will rise alarmingly."

Professor Brind said a surge in levels of the hormone estrogen in the
first three months of pregnancy by around 2000 percent is the most likely
mechanism for increasing risk in women who subsequently undergo an
abortion.

Life pointed to the research findings to assert that abortion is
psychologically and physically dangerous.

Professor Jack Scarisbrick, chairman of Life, said: "We accuse the
government and the medical establishment of persistent refusal to take
seriously the mounting evidence that abortion is a significantly
independent risk factor for breast cancer."

--
When using items from the Pro-Life Infonet in your newsletter, please
include our web site (www.prolifeinfo.org) or email address
(infonet@prolifeinfo.org). Thanks!

 



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   1/22/2002 4:12 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (64 of 84)  
 
  23.64 in reply to 23.63  
 
Um, what does this have to do with the pill? It has to do with abortion....In fact, being on the pill after 40 cuts the risk of both breast and uterine cancer in half. My mother had both and so i am considered high risk...they have put me on the pill at 39 to cut the risk. 
karen

<#### src="http://www.geocities.com/prisca107/karen.swf" quality=high pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="230" height="210">  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    3/23/2002 5:11 pm  
To:  ALL   (65 of 84)  
 
  23.65 in reply to 23.63  
 
Source:   Ohio Right to Life; January 30, 2002

Ohio Legislator Proposes Abortion-Breast Cancer Study

Columbus, OH -- Ohio State Representative Jean Schmidt on Tuesday
announced a plan to help ensure women are informed about a possible link
to abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer.  The Abortion Breast
Cancer (ABC) Resolution would establish a task force to study whether
abortion causes a greater risk for breast cancer and make recommendations
for how to raise awareness of the issue.

"Breast cancer is the most common form of cancer for women and the second
leading cause of death among women," Schmidt said.  "It is imperative for
all women to be armed with as much knowledge as possible about their risk
for this disease."

It is estimated that 8,900 new breast cancer cases were detected in 2001,
and of those, at least 1,900 women were expected to die from the disease.
Just as alarming is the fact that Ohio's overall cancer death rate is
higher than the national average.

There have been several studies from the United States and around the
world indicating a link between abortion and an increased risk for breast
cancer.  According to statistics from the Ohio Department of Health, there
have been an average of 30,000 abortions each year in Ohio since 1976.
If the reported link between abortion and breast cancer holds true, these
statistics mean there may be hundreds of thousands of women who are
unknowingly at a special risk of developing cancer.

"We are better prepared to make appropriate decisions concerning our
future when we know the risks.  If abortion truly causes a greater risk of
breast cancer, it is our right to know and our duty to raise awareness for
other women," Schmidt said.

The task force established by the resolution would be required to issue
its findings by November 30, 2002.  At least 26 legislators have joined
Schmidt in co-sponsoring the resolution.

For more information, contact:  Ohio Right to Life, 2238 S. Hamilton Road,
Suite 200, , Columbus, Ohio, 43232-4382, (614) 864-5200

--
The Pro-Life Infonet is a daily compilation of pro-life news and
information. To subscribe, send the message "subscribe" to:
infonet-request@prolifeinfo.org. Infonet is sponsored by Women and
Children First (http://www.womenandchildrenfirst.org). For more pro-life
info visit http://www.prolifeinfo.org and for questions or additional
information email ertelt@prolifeinfo.org



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   3/24/2002 10:46 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (66 of 84)  
 
  23.66 in reply to 23.65  
 

Hi dave... 
Maybe you've posted info on this before but do you know of any studies where BC has also been paired with infertility? 

I know of soooo many Christian young women (chaste at marriage) who cannot get pregnant after taking BC or have miscarried several times. 

Unexplained Infertiltiy continues to increase...there must be a biological reason for this. Modern women has the best medical/social/ecconomic ever and yet among healthy, chaste young women...fertility is decreasing. My own POV is that the "pill" has a LOT to do with it. 

Linda 





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 3/24/2002 1:47:45 PM ET by HopeFloats (RACHELSCHILD) 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   3/24/2002 12:35 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (67 of 84)  
 
  23.67 in reply to 23.65  
 
i posted this before and you obviously deleted it...perhaps you would have the courtesy of not doing so. 
I find this whole thread so odd, because my mother had ovarian cancer. Ovarian cancer is linked to breast cancer, and is hereditary...so i am carefully checked each year for both. This year as i approach my 40th birthday, i was put on the pill for its preventive effects in terms of both breast and cervical cancer. All the research which i have read suggests that the pill may prevent breast cancer....So i am pretty confused by your stance.



  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    3/24/2002 5:42 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (68 of 84)  
 
  23.68 in reply to 23.67  
 
Hi Karen,

Are you shure that you posed it on this thread?

I don't remember seing a post like that on this thread and I certanly didn't delete one like that.

God Bless You,

David

 



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    3/24/2002 6:07 pm  
To:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   (69 of 84)  
 
  23.69 in reply to 23.66  
 
Hi,

 

Good point, Im sure that the pill doesnt help. I keep going back to the fact that the pill is a Synthetic Hormone. I know that every man is told to stay away from Steroids because they are synthetic and deadly, but for some reason we are supposed to believe that whats harmful for men is beneficial to women. Buyer beware!

 

Ill keep my eye open for any information about the pill causing pregnancy difficulties. Also I would add to it that our food supply does have a bunch of unhealthy Hormones and Steroid type of products in it. These are given to the animals and then when we consume them and receive it. Its just another way to throw the timing and operation of the body off.

 

God Bless You,

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   3/24/2002 7:15 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (70 of 84)  
 
  23.70 in reply to 23.69  
 
Thanks David, i thought i did. 
Um, the thyroid replacement hormone i take is synthetic...but i would die without it...And so is the insulin many diabetics take to stay alive. 

"Hormone" does not equal "steroid"...and "synthetic" is not always bad..it simply means a man made alternative, so we dont have to use dead bodies. 

Just my two cents worth.



  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    3/24/2002 7:42 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (71 of 84)  
 
  23.71 in reply to 23.70  
 
Hi Karen,

 

Thanks for the information.

 

The primary focus of this topic is to provide information and with the information opportunity, opportunity for more and varied treatments.

 

There is also the whole realm of herbal remedies, just curious as to what your thoughts are regarding some of the herbal remedies, of course when appropriate.

 

God Bless You,

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   3/25/2002 4:07 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (72 of 84)  
 
  23.72 in reply to 23.71  
 
There are millions of herbal remedies...would you be specific? I am not sure to which you are referring....


  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    3/25/2002 4:40 am  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (73 of 84)  
 
  23.73 in reply to 23.72  
 
Hi Karen,

 

Im just looking for more Medical options.

 

For starters how about the oils like Flax Seed Oil?

 

God Bless You,

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   3/25/2002 7:14 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (74 of 84)  
 
  23.74 in reply to 23.73  
 
I have no problem with people choosing herbal remedies as long as they educate themselves. There are some herbals that can, for example, cause spontaneous miscarriage if you are pregnant. I would never just use herbals, I would go to an herbalist who knew what the interactions were between different substances. Personally, I have no idea what flax seed oil is purported to do.


  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    3/25/2002 4:22 pm  
To:  karen (karen10051)   (75 of 84)  
 
  23.75 in reply to 23.74  
 
Flax Seed is a natural grain that is naturally high in essential fatty acids it is considered that these fatty acids are needed by the body for proper nervous system functions and  therefore as an important part of  a persons emotional and general well being. 

 

This is kind of like the case where a child is considered a behavior problem and is then given a strong manmade drug like Ritalin when actually the problem turns out to be as simple as too much sugar in the childs diet.

 

After all the cure shouldnt be worse than the disease.

 

God Bless You,

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  karen (karen10051)   3/25/2002 4:28 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (76 of 84)  
 
  23.76 in reply to 23.75  
 
I agree that we should always be careful not to overmedicate...but medications do have their proper place.


  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


Message 77 of 84 was Deleted    



  From:  David (DavidABrown)    4/5/2002 7:07 pm  
To:  ALL   (78 of 84)  
 
  23.78 in reply to 23.65  
 
Source:   Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer; March 30, 2002

Abortion-Breast Cancer Group Responds to North Dakota Decision

Chicago, IL -- An international women's group today condemned the decision
of North Dakota
state court Judge Michael McGuire to deny life-saving medical information
to
abortion-bound women.  In a lawsuit filed by Amy Jo Kjolsrud against the
Fargo based Red River Women's Clinic, McGuire ruled in favor of the
clinic,
which in 1999 when the suit was filed was distributing a pamphlet claiming
that there was no medical research associating abortion with breast
cancer.

Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, said
"Judge McGuire's decision denies women the right to informed consent.
Women
have the right to know that 28 out of 37 studies have linked abortion with
breast cancer since 1957.  What is the judge's problem with telling women
that much?  Don't we have the right to make autonomous health care
decisions?"

Judge McGuire ruled that the defendant could rely on statements from the
National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Cancer Society which do
not
recognize a causal relationship between abortion and the disease.   Expert
witnesses for the plaintiff had offered evidence to the contrary.
Thirteen
of 15 U.S. studies report elevated risk.  Most of these were funded at
least
in part by the NCI.

The NCI's fact sheets, discussing the research (the latest of which - not
coincidentally - was revised less than three weeks before the trial), have
been severely criticized by Joel Brind, Ph.D., president of the Breast
Cancer Prevention Institute, the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer and
former Congressman Tom Coburn, MD.  The federal agency was accused of
lying
about the research paid for by taxpayers on two fact sheets in a March 20,
2002 press release issued by the coalition and by Dr. Brind, an
endocrinologist.

A researcher working for the American Cancer Society in 1997, Phyllis
Wingo, was accused of back pedaling on her evaluation of the research in
the
coalition's December 11, 2001 press release.

Only one day before the judge's decision, World Net Daily reported that
the
American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, a patients' advocacy
group,
had adopted the position that physicians should inform abortion-bound
women
of the existence of more studies implicating abortion as a risk factor
than
not.

Jane Orient, a physician and spokesperson for the medical organization,
said "If you look at the number of studies that show a connection, they
vastly outnumber the ones that don't, and the ones that don't have been
criticized for serious methodological flaws."  She indicated that the risk
is "substantial, particularly in women who abort their first pregnancy at
a
young age and who have a family history of breast cancer.  It's something
like 800 percent."  She added that patient information "should include the
potential connection with breast cancer as well as the long-term
psychological risk."

Mrs. Malec said, "If Judge McGuire any doubt about a causal relationship
between this optional surgical procedure and breast cancer, then what
would
have been the harm in giving women the benefit of it by erring on the side
of caution?  Instead, he benefited big business - the abortion industry.
Women will die because of his decision.  Teenagers are at particularly
grave
risk.  Judge McGuire will have to live with the knowledge that he is
responsible for their deaths."

--
You can make a donation to support the Pro-Life Infonet with your credit
card.
Please go to http://www.womenandchildrenfirst.org/creditcard




David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    4/5/2002 7:09 pm  
To:  ALL   (79 of 84)  
 
  23.79 in reply to 23.65  
 
Source:   Women's Resource Network; March 28, 2002

TV Ads on Abortion-Breast Cancer Link Will Air in California

San Diego, CA - The Women's Resource Network of California announced today
that it would be adding an ad on the Abortion Breast Cancer Link (ABC
link) to the collection of Pro-Woman/Pro-Life television ads.

The script of the ABC Link television ad reads:

"I wish I had known, nobody told me that 40 years of research and 28
medical studies have shown a significant link between abortion and breast
cancer. I did not know that abortion could increase my risk of breast
cancer by 50% or more. Now, I have breast cancer. I learned that the
abortion I had when I was 17 was a major risk factor. I want to let other
women know, because I would have given anything to have known."

The commercials encourage women to see their doctor and give a web site
and toll-free phone number to call for more information.

Women's Resource Network, California works with life affirming
organizations throughout the state that offer free services to women in
unplanned pregnancy, offer alternatives to abortion, promote adoption, and
help with physical needs such as free medical services, food, formula,
diapers and even some clinics that offer STD testing and Prenatal care
through well baby checkups.  The WRN has been airing outreach commercials
since 2000.  The ads are produced by Compass Arts, a professional
production company, in Michigan that has donated time and resources to the
project. Their talents have also created commercials for companies such as
GM and McDonalds.

The ABC Link ad is similar in its production quality, but was produced by
VirtueMedia, Inc. (www.virtuemedia.org), a 501 (c) 3 non-profit
organization, dedicated to offering messages of life, love and hope to
people in need.  VirtueMedia developed this ad in cooperation with Dr.
Joel Brind and Angela Lanfranchi, M.D. of the Breast Cancer Prevention
Institute, the Abortion/Breast Cancer Coalition, Chris Kahlenborn, M.D.,
and Dr. David Reardon of the Elliott Institute, to insure accuracy of
facts and offer the best available resources to the women it reaches.

Media buys are planned for the entire state at a cost of $6 million a year
reaching the 33 million people of California with a combination of ads
from these two production companies.  The ABC ad is being rushed onto the
airwaves in response to recent developments in San Diego.

"There is so much research and we run across literally hundreds of women
who say they wish they had known.  Yet, government funded breast cancer
programs suppress the information and legislators won't require profit
driven abortionists who are big donors to politicians to give women the
information." Says Dana Serrano, Executive Director of WRN.  "This month a
court in San Diego has held a woman's right to know this information is
lost when she enters a planned parenthood site. Instead, the court held
there is a new right of "free speech" giving Planned Parenthood a superior
right to withhold information and not disclose health risks of abortion.
For years women have been fighting against this type of gag rule and the
court has thrown us backward into the days of preventing women from
getting information about their bodies.  This vital information needs to
get to women who may be at risk - so we have to get these ads on as soon
as possible to save the health and lives of women."

One Director of a Women's Resource Center in San Marcos, Kim Houlihan
concurred with the Chief Legal Counsel on the lawsuit on ABC thrown out by
the courts in San Diego who said, "The Defendants' (Planned Parenthood)
effort to avoid a hearing on the merits is to be expected. Big abortion
has spared no expense to conceal the truth about this grave risk to women.
Although disappointing, Judge Prager's ruling is not that surprising.
Just as it took big tobacco several decades before they acknowledged the
risks associated with their products, so too, big abortion appears willing
to sacrifice the health of women for the sake of profits.  The politics of
abortion and big money has hijacked the science on this issue."

--
Please consider making a donation to help the work of the Pro-Life
Infonet. You can send a donation to:  Women and Children First, PO Box
4433, Helena, MT 59604-4433. We appreciate your support.




David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  David (DavidABrown)    7/4/2002 12:40 am  
To:  ALL   (80 of 84)  
 
  23.80 in reply to 23.65  
 
Source:   Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer; July 2, 2002

Cancer Group Pulls Biased Web Page on Abortion-Breast Cancer

1. "Latest Web Page from the National Cancer Institute: A well cooked bowl of
factoids,"by Joel Brind, Ph.D.; RFM News, March 23, 2002;
http://abortionbreastcancer.com/Public_Policy.htm

Chicago, IL -- The president of a women's group, the Coalition on
Abortion/Breast Cancer, reported today that the National Cancer Institute (NCI)
has taken down an inaccurate web page discussing the abortion-breast cancer
research.

The NCI's fact sheet has been heavily criticized in recent months by this
women's group, a prominent scientist [1], at least three physicians and 28
members of Congress, including Rep. Dave Weldon, M.D. [2]  They've objected to
the agency's misrepresentation of the research, reliance on erroneous studies,
confusion of the effects of miscarriage and abortion, inclusion of false
statements and refusal to acknowledge the deleterious effects of abortion on the
confirmed breast cancer risk factor - postponement of first full term pregnancy.

Mrs. Karen Malec, president of the women's group, said, "We're delighted that
the National Cancer Institute has pulled its web page discussing the
abortion-breast cancer link.  The web page misinformed women about research paid
for by U.S. taxpayers and even contained lies about the findings reported in the
medical literature." [3]

Early last month, 28 members of Congress sent a letter to Secretary of Health
and Human Services Tommy Thompson requesting a review of the NCI's fact sheet
and calling its information "scientifically inaccurate and
misleading to the public." They asked Secretary Thompson to check the web page
"for accuracy and bias"and to take it down until after the conclusion of
the review.

The congressional representatives scored the agency for having suggested that
"women who have had either induced or spontaneous abortions have the same risk
as other women for developing breast cancer,"when in fact 28 out of 37 studies
worldwide and 13 of 15 American studies report risk elevations. [Reference: 
http://abortionbreastcancer.com/ABC_Research.htm] They condemned the NCI for
depending on a single study, Melbye et al. 1997, to deny a relationship between
abortion and the disease, "although that
study contains many significant flaws."[4]

"In 1999, the agency was accused by a scientist of publishing an 'outright
lie,'"reported Mrs. Malec, "because it said on its website that, 'The scientific
rationale for an association between abortion and breast cancer
is based on limited experimental data in rats and is not consistent with human
data.'   However, the NCI had paid, at least in part, for most of the 13
American studies done by that date, and all but one of them had reported
increased risk."

Mrs. Malec concluded, "We strongly encourage the NCI to come clean and to tell
the truth.  Tell women how many studies report risk elevations.  Fully disclose
the strong biological and epidemiological evidence which has been gathered since
1957 and which implicates abortion as a risk factor for breast
cancer."

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women's organization
founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating and
providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.

References:

1. "Latest Web Page from the National Cancer Institute: A well cooked bowl of
factoids,"by Joel Brind, Ph.D.; RFM News, March 23, 2002;
http://abortionbreastcancer.com/Public_Policy.htm

2. U.S. Representative Chris Smith, et al. (June 7, 2002) Letter to Secretary of
Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson
3. Press Release, Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer; March 20, 2002.

4. Melbye et al. (1997) New Engl J Med 336:81-5.

--
When using items from the Pro-Life Infonet in your newsletter, please include
our web site www.prolifeinfo.org or email address
infonet@prolifeinfo.org Thanks!




David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  CRAW (FREDCDOBBS99)   7/24/2002 7:19 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (81 of 84)  
 
  23.81 in reply to 23.4  
 
Dave>>This post is Not intended to be a scare tactic. It is More information given to people who rely on the strengh of Jesus<< 
Not true, as can be seen from your other issues, you are a religious zealot firmly against women and legal choice. All your conduct shows anti choice to be your prime issue. 

As for people relying on the strength of a jesus---it kinda reminds me of some religious fanatics who deny their children much needed hospital/medical care because they believe some jesus is going to heal them, please come into the 21st century, where man and science have provided many "miracles" ! 

CRAW 

PRO CHOICE PRO AMERICA PRO WOMAN ANTI SUPERSTITION 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 7/24/2002 10:29:24 AM ET by CRAW (FREDCDOBBS99) 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    7/24/2002 8:57 pm  
To:  CRAW (FREDCDOBBS99) unread  (82 of 84)  
 
  23.82 in reply to 23.81  
 
Hi Fred,

 

Your stereotyping is both wrong and inappropriate.

 

Btw I think that you are already banned from this forum for your rude and inappropriate behavior.

 

Ill check the denied access list and if you are on it I will remove you again from the forum.

 

If not please dispense with the petty stereotyping.

 

Thank You,

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  PCalltheway   7/25/2002 7:28 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (83 of 84)  
 
  23.83 in reply to 23.82  
 
David , it is YOU who is a stereotype, you fit the pattern perfectly--it shows as you attack whatever is in your way, your "truth and light" 
You arent concerned with any incidence in cancer from birth control pills, it should be obvious to anyone that you are against birth control and legal abortion anywhere , anytime----it is your misguided driving force. If aspirin caused a larger number of breast cancers, I doubt you would be out there campaigning against it. 

You a just another holier than thou bible banger, a nuisance to society. 

Oh by the way, this is fred c the one you banned immediately because you cannot debate, but only sling ancient slogans----come into the 21st century, banning me is no prob, I just make up a new name and jump right back in this fundy mess if I wish---but I don't---there is no sign of intelligent life here, and I doubt there will be---just fundies patting each other on the back---no content---- now get back to your cornewr preachers stand, pack up your slogans in your old station wagon covered with "jesus saves" slogans and head on out, you are a joke, BYE
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  David (DavidABrown)    7/25/2002 8:57 am  
To:  PCalltheway unread  (84 of 84)  
 
  23.84 in reply to 23.83  
 
Hi,

 

After reading your post it looks like you are wrong about almost everything you wrote.

 

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
