Some signs from the anti-anti-choice march

it's time to bring all that statement says back to public consciousness.
abortion is legal, but very few have access, and the numbers are getting smaller. we need to start talking about how roe v. wade isn't good enough. the language used leaves it open to be hacked away. poor women, women of color, immigrant women, and minors all have trouble obtaining access to abortions. we need to change that.
we, who have had abortions, also need to be vocal about it----don't apologize. we, on the left, need to talk about this stuff more. it's dangerous to declare publicaly, perhaps, but until we are morally okay with our own abortions-things are not going to change.

wow! i feel ashamed that there are people out there that would say such things! we need to make it easier for people to have an abortions!! whats wrong with you! you want to make it easier for people to kill their babies! wow! people think that they get to play God. decide who gets to live and who gets to die, well i hate to break it to you but you dont! i think its funny how people think its horrible and wrong that scott peterson killed conner, but if laci had done it then it would have been just fine! people need to think about whats coming out of their mouths and how if affects the world. you're an immagrant so you should end you unborn childs life! you do realize thats what your saying, maybe you should rethink that one. so of the greatest people in this world were born poor, or were immigrants, or were born to teenage mothers. women need to see that abortions arent there to help US they're telling us not to have children, that we dont need to have children, that kids are bad abd that we'll be thought less of if we have one. and thats wrong. but hey it never really was about "a womens right" was it. im not buying it. i know better than to kill my children. i was taught my morals...were you?

-just another caring " christian facist" since thats what u like to call us right?

... that i'm a frivolous woman who isn't capable of responsibility and making decisions about her own life without your help?

Sex-"workers" spend most of their "work" time sucking the patriarch's cocks. They are not "workers"! They produce nothing that makes the surplus...Sex is not meant to be oppressive thus it is not "work". Whores call it a "social service" so do the pigs that go to them to be serviced.
They are responsible by their free choice to be whores to keep the women's movement for change from moving forward.
Shame on them - traitors!
They choose to be our enemies by legitimizing the oppression of women as they suck...suck... the masters!
They are NOT our sisters until they get off their knees and start doing real "work" - just like the rest of us. Then they will be our allies.

And what does this have to do with a woman's right to reproductive self-determination?

"liberated woman" (Tuesday, Jan. 25)

The March for Life was intended to prevent these types of things. The abortion industry is billions of dollars of revenue in the US each year. They, like any other big-business, would like to continue growing - despite the cost to women.

ABORTION-CANCER LAWSUIT SUCCESSFUL

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer applauds the successful prosecution of a lawsuit against an abortion clinic and a physician for performing an abortion on a 15-year-old girl without informing her of the psychological risks and the increased risk of breast cancer. It is the second abortion-cancer lawsuit to be successfully prosecuted in the U.S. and the first case to obtain a judgment.

All Women's Health Services, a clinic in Portland, Oregon, made an offer of judgment last year. This allows the plaintiff to win the lawsuit without a trial. The judge signed the agreement on January 24, 2005. The amount of the judgment is confidential.

The teen aged plaintiff has a family history of breast cancer and indicated a history of cancer on the clinic intake forms. According to research in 1994 by Janet Daling and her colleagues at Seattle's Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, teenagers with a family history of the disease who procure abortions before age 18 have an incalculably high breast cancer risk.

Abortions that occur before the birth of a first child are the most carcinogenic, a finding supported by biological and epidemiological evidence.

ABORTION, BREAST CANCER, AND THE MISUSE OF SCIENCE

Anti-choice forces are distorting scientific findings to frighten women into believing that abortion causes breast cancer. Breast cancer is a significant concern for women. According to an American Cancer Society fact sheet (October 2003), an estimated 211,300 new cases of breast cancer would be diagnosed in the United States in 2003, and approximately 40,000 women in the U.S. would die of the disease in 2003. Further research into the causes and cures of breast cancer is urgently needed so that womn have medically accurate information about all risk factors. However, anti-choice propaganda asserting that abortion causes breast cancer is unsupported by scientific research and dangerous for women’s ealth.

CURRENT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH DOES NOT PROVE THAT ABORTION CAUSES BREAST CANCER
Over thirty published studies have examined any possible link between abortion and breast cancer. The largest and most comprehensive investigation of this potential relationship examined population registry information on aortion and breast cancer for 1.5 million women born in Denmark between 1935 and 1978. This study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, concluded, “[i]nduced abortions have no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer.” Results from a study published in the January 2000 issue of Epidemiology found “no excess risk of breast cancer among women who reported having an induced abortion compared with those who did not, nor did risk increase with increasing number of reported induced abortions.” Studies that indicate a link have identified only a slight one — equal to or less than the increased breast cancer risk associated with marital status, place of residence, or religion.

Independent experts including the National Breast Cancer Coalition, the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, and the World Health Organization have concluded that a link between abortion and breast cancer has not been established.

Researchers themselves suggest that data indicating a tie between abortion and breast cancer may result from methodological flaws in study design that do not account for the self-reporting bias known to occur when women are asked about emotional and personal issues such as abortion. Perhaps the most serious flaw was revealed by studies indicating that breast cancer patients are more likely than healthy womn to accurately report previous abortions. If women with cancer report their abortion more frequently, the data will show – inaccurately – that women who have had abortions are more likely to have cancer.

you're quoting NARAL! If women weren't pressed into abortions by boyfriends, family etc., they'd lose a ton of revenue.

I'm sure, though, they'd only present the facts. Just like the big tobacco companies, right?

"you're quoting NARAL!"
Yeah yeah, we know, the Great Satan. You'd prefer we quote Falwell I suppose.

"If women weren't pressed into abortions by boyfriends, family etc., they'd lose a ton of revenue."

I'm grateful for NARAL's existance, I might just send them a check today! And once again, you think women are incapable of weighing the issues of abortion on their own?


"I'm sure, though, they'd only present the facts. Just like the big tobacco companies, right?"

You mean just like the anti-choicers will choose to present their version of the facts??? You people will distort anything to get your way. Like: Abortion providers are "baby killers", and their murder is justified. Lets start there. Justify that, honey.

Surely we can assume them to be lacking in bias on this issue, eh anti-choicer?

"At the present time, the scientific evidence does not support a causal association between induced abortion and breast cancer. "
read the whole thing yourself:
http://tinyurl.com/w9xj

What the Experts Say
In February 2003, the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. The experts reviewed existing human and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. Among their conclusions were:

* Breast cancer risk is transiently (temporarily) increased after a term pregnancy [resulting in the birth of a living child].
* Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.
* Recognized spontaneous abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.

The level of scientific evidence for these conclusions was considered to be "well established" (the highest level).

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Committee on Gynecologic Practice reviewed the available evidence as well and published their findings in August 2003. They concluded that "early studies of the relationship between prior induced abortion and breast cancer risk have been inconsistent and are difficult to interpret because of methodologic considerations. More rigorous recent studies argue against a causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk."

The Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, based out of Oxford University in England, recently put together the results from 53 separate studies conducted in 16 different countries. These studies included about 83,000 women with breast cancer. After combining and reviewing the results from these studies, the researchers concluded that “the totality of worldwide epidemiological evidence indicates that pregnancies ending as either spontaneous or induced abortions do not have adverse effects on women’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer.”

Conclusion

The topic of abortion and breast cancer highlights many of the most challenging aspects of studies of human populations and how those studies do or do not translate into public health guidelines. The issue of abortion generates passionate viewpoints among many people. Breast cancer is the most common cancer, and is the second leading cancer killer, in women. Still, the public is not well-served by false alarms, even when both the exposure and the disease are of great importance and interest to us all. At the present time, the scientific evidence does not support a causal association between induced abortion and breast cancer.

I'm sure you don't just look at the studies that "prove" what you want to believe right?

Fact: there's a strong link between abortion and breast cancer.

find whatever studies by NARAL or those they fund, but it doesn't change the facts. Until people admit that, women will continue to suffer -- And will be pressured into abortion just like my friend at work.

I have a niece who would be dead if my brother and his wife didn't tell her mother that they would adopt her. The mother absolutely did not want to kill her unborn baby. Yet everyone told her to do so. Why? Because it was more convenient for them. Forget about her; forget about post-abortion syndrome; forget about cancer. For only a few hundred bucks, they could keep their grand daughter, niece, daughter, cousin, out of the picture.
She was completely distraught. Everyone wanted her unborn baby dead. Except her. She wanted her baby to be born, to live, to be happy. No one, except my brother and his wife, would offer her that chance.

Pro-abortion people are not actually "pro-choice" unless you love women enough to offer them a real choice.

Do you all work for Planned Parenthood? Are you stock-holders? Why do you have such a strong interest in them growing their market? I figured an independent news site like this would have at least a few people that distrusted multi-billion dollar a year businesses.

Bernard Nathanson invented the term pro-choice - I'm sure he's your hero. But he made millions of dollars off people who CHOSE to be ignorant. People who claim to be "pro-choice" are nothing but pro-abortionists. There's only one choice they really care about. The choice to destroy the child in the womb - even if it literally kills the mother to make that choice.

I hope this works, I'm trying to attach a pic of my niece. Everyone wanted her dead execpt her mom and adopted parents. The only choice they supported was killing Julia.

That's a real lizard on her shoulder. She's not afraid of them.

If any of you know a woman who's being pressured into abortion, please post it here. My brother and his wife are on a list to adopt another baby. There are at least ten couples on adoption lists for every baby that's put up for adoption.

I mean if the facts from the American Cancer Society won't do, perhaps you'd like to let me know what witch doctor you're using. Does this doctor read the entrails of dead chickens perhaps?
Read it again from the Cancer society:
"At the present time, the scientific evidence does not support a causal association between induced abortion and breast cancer."

Oh in fact, pregnancy temporarily increases the risk of breast cancer, what do you know about that!!!

Again from the American Cancer Society (we know they're in the pocket of the big tobacco companies don't we?):
* Breast cancer risk is transiently (temporarily) increased after a term pregnancy [resulting in the birth of a living child].
* Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.
* Recognized spontaneous abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk."

...is that her Mother's CHOICE wasn't being supported...I'm PRO-CHOICE. Meaning that if the woman wants to have the baby, then I support that. If she doesn't, I support that.
I agree that there are people, who for their own reasons, exert undue pressure on the woman and act coercively. One thing we can all agree on is that the woman's decision making process is guided (in large part) by the dictates of her own reason and soul as much as possible.
You seem to be casting the facts of your niece's birth as being only a problem for your neice, not as a problem for your sister...it was your sister's problem...not Julia's.
A question for everyone involved in this debate is this: how do you know when an "authentic" i.e., self-generated and self-guided, self-endorsed decision is being made?
Can you honestly say that if your sister wanted to have an abortion, you wouldn't have pressed your agenda on her as forcefully as other members of your family appeared to have done? Surely, if you can see that their influence on her decision making process was not healthy for her, you would have to agree that any undue influence on her from anyone was similarly pernicious?
I am a unplanned child whose mother considered abortion. (I have noticed two other postings from other people in the same position) I am happy that she made a choice she conceived of, thought about, and committed to. Not that she decided to have me. But that she followed the dictates of her soul and her soul's reasoning and made a choice.