-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
For those who oppose abortion no tactic is too sleazy. The scare tactic of stopping abortion by linking it with breast cancer was manna from heaven. The visceral fear of breast cancer would present the faithful with a weapon to be wielded with no regard for the facts. The fact that the scientific evidence shows no link between abortion and breast cancer fazed them not.
The recent Komen/Planned Parenthood publicity and Komen’s ties to this woo, has reanimated this long-dead controversy.
The Komen tie-in is via Jane Abraham, a member of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Advocacy Alliance board of directors. Abraham is also on the board of directors of The Nurturing Network, an organization founded and chaired by Mary Cunningham Agee. It was Agee who, in 1999, wrote in a Culture of Life Foundation newsletter that “the undeniable link between breast cancer and abortion is only the ‘tip of an iceberg’ of damage that medical science is now able to reveal about this procedure.”
Abraham is also founder and General Chairman of the Susan B. Anthony List. On its website, the SBA List touts its Komen connection while claiming:
There are also studies that link abortion to breast cancer- which is precisely what SGK is supposed to be fighting against.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is a lie.
The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists released a report, Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk, that found:
More rigorous recent studies demonstrate no causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found:
Breast cancer: induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.
The American Cancer Society studied the link and reported the results:
- Induced abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk.
- Spontaneous abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk.
These scientific results are known to the anti-abortion cadre, and they’d rather lie to women.
H/T: Jodi Jacobson, Catholics For Choice (pdf).
Bdaman
Mmmm…no, I’m not doing your research for you. You evidently quoted something from yourself, e. g., one of your comments, above. You are not quoting a scientist.
I doubt that someone in a refereed scientific journal article said, “YOUR A FOOL”? I’d love to see that. No reputable journal would allow that kind of language, or let an obvious spelling error like that one, pass. Or allow the numerous punctuation errors.
Yes, everyone’s entitled to their own opinion. But an opinion based on bogus evidence is not equal in value to an opinion based on reproducible observations.
It’s very difficult to argue with you. I can’t follow your argument, primarily because you’re not following your argument. Did you catch the clever use of ‘you’re’ and ‘your’ in that sentence?
You’re out of your depth. Stay in the shallow end of the pool. Bye.
Where is the evidence (not videos or blog rants) for your accusations that human-caused global warming is a fraud?
“The whole theory of regulate CO2 to 350 ppm, the so called safe zone, see 350.org is a joke. We are approaching 400 ppm. The temperature has leveled off for the last 10-15 years. Sea level has dropped not increased. Worldwide Tropical cyclones have decreased not increased. Tornado’s, droughts and floods have also decreased. YOUR A FOOL if you accept that any of those have increased. The data is there you just have to see it for yourself to believe it. How can 350 ppm be a safe zone. How can this possibly be a safe zone when the world’s ten deadliest floods occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm.
24 of the deadliest tornado’s happened when CO2 was below 350 ppm.The strongest and deadliest US hurricanes occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm. The only time in recorded hurricane history to have 4 active hurricanes all over the course of several days happened when CO2 was below 350. Nine of the world’s ten deadliest hurricanes and typhoons occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm. As they say everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not to their own set of facts.”
Google away
So the question becomes at what level must CO2 be stabilized in order to control the weather, even though weather is not climate but yet adds up to be climate, from the daily, then weekly, then monthly, then yearly average means.
And to be honest is just about moot anyways as the carbon markets are near complete collapse and green energy is as well.. Especially now that Germany will phase out all of their nuclear facilities by 2020 or there abouts and revert back to burning fossil fuel. Every week another solar or wind company goes bankrupt. Solyndra, Evergreen Solar Inc, SpectraWatt, Cardinal Fastener and Specialty Co, Bergey Wind, Gaia Wind. Not to mention that 80% Chinese wind turbines companies might be bankrupted. You can google all those as well. You can only link two links in each comment that you make.
What an odd conversation.
idealist707
“Your cocksure confidence in the effect of “facts” is naive, I believe.”
I stated no confidence in the effect of “facts,” so it couldn’t be “cocksure” or “naive.”
I merely stated the consensus, among scientists (not wing-nut blogs), of what the facts seem to be.
You’re arguing against a point that I didn’t make.
Bdaman
Where is the evidence (not videos or blog rants) for your accusations that human-caused global warming is a fraud?
Cite us some research, some studies, some measurements. Not books. Anyone can write a book asserting anything.
Peer-reviewed articles in established scientific journals, or a review citing them, would be useful. “Useful” in the sense of “that’s all I’m going to believe.” Call me picky.
If you tell us, as you did, that the sea-level hasn’t risen, show us the measurements.
If you can’t, let’s get back to the subject of this blog post: “Lying For Jesus: The Abortion/Breast Cancer Link.”
You’ve wandered into the deep end of the pool. You really can’t swim that well.
bob kauten,
Take off your defensive eyeglasses and read my post again, please.
It was in NO WAY meant as a challenge to you or your scientifically supported what ever your point was.
I challenged, hold your breath, your tone of confidence (in my ears) that FACTS WOULD PREVAIL.
I say that deception, skillful propaganda, buzzwords, emotionally loaded argumentw without factual merit are stronger than facts in the public mind, not yours but theirs. Short fables survive facts and go to legacy, when facts have long disappeared from folk memory.
Sincerrly hope I enticed you off your affronted position, and you could manage to chew through my very overlong sentences. It is one of my handicaps., sincerely meant Wonder if a course in brevity might help.
Jon
PS not to piss you off more, but get off the run you and Gene H. were on, and take a look at what the authorities are planning for your future.
fas.org/blog/secrecy fas is the federation of american scientists who had worked on the Manhattan Project pre-1945. But then you may know of them, otherwise you will manage. But do look and give me your reaction. I’m really interested what someone with your acumen will decide afterwards.
Scientist believe that the sun’s radiation has increased by twenty-five per cent since the beginning of life here. It is expected to continue to rise, and will be a challenge to surface life eventually.
As to cycle 25, is this a reference to the twenty-fifth cycle of 11-year (approx.) sunspot cycles. We don’t have reliable data or definitely established correlation between those cycles and climate. Or do we? Links?
My goodness … the right must be feeling the pinch … Global Warming and Breast Cancer … “The abortion breast cancer debate is as bad as the Global Warming debate. Sooner or later you will feel like you been duped.” (bda)
Access To Birth Control Is A Fundamental Component Of Climate Survival
“Any morally acceptable pathway to prevent catastrophic global warming includes broad access to affordable birth control for the world’s women.”
http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/02/10/423265/access-to-birth-control-is-a-fundamental-component-of-climate-survival/?mobile=nc
Chemistry is chemistry, Bdaman. It behaves the same universally. Carbon retains heat in nature just as well as it does in the lab.
You can’t reproduce the climate and all that affects it in a lab. We are approaching 400 ppm. The temperature is suppose to be going up. The hockey stick told us that.
but yet………..
Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
Blouise,
It almost always is. 😉
Blouise in case you missed this it’s scientist behaving badly.
60 minutes last night
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7398476n
My goodness … the right must be feeling the pinch … Global Warming and Breast Cancer … “The abortion breast cancer debate is as bad as the Global Warming debate. Sooner or later you will feel like you been duped.” (bda)
Can anyone spell distraction?
Chemistry is chemistry, Bdaman. It behaves the same universally. Carbon retains heat in nature just as well as it does in the lab. As to the sun? The sun does cause periodic warming and cooling which has nothing to do with increasing heat retention by altering the chemistry of the atmosphere with gases that retain more heat by containing carbon based or other greenhouse gases. The Sun’s effect on the Earth’s temperature is related to its native heat output which varies over the life-cycle of a star. Apples and oranges in re causation and mechanics.
Someone needs to learn how the chemistry of carbon works.
In a lab is one thing in the real world it is proving to be quite another.
I know Gene the sun has nothing to do with it. It’s a constant right ?
How warm was Greenland?
The Vikings are both famous and notorious for their liking of beer and mead and archaeologists have discussed for years whether Eric the Red (ca 950-1010) and his followers had to make do without the golden drink when they settled in Greenland around the year 1,000: The climate was mild when they landed, but was it warm enough for growing barley?
Researchers from the National Museum in Copenhagen say the answer to the question is ‘yes’. In a unique find, they uncovered tiny fragments of charred barley grains in a Viking midden on Greenland.
The find is final proof that the first Vikings to live in Greenland did grow barley – the most important ingredient in making a form of porridge, baking bread and of course in brewing beer, traditionally seen as the staple foods in the Vikings’ diet.
http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/archives/02/2012/viking-barley-in-greenland
Someone needs to learn how the chemistry of carbon works.
The famous hockey stick does not show the medieval warming period. They had to make it go away to bolster the theory.
There’s no substantial doubt among scientists that humans are contributing significantly to global warming. The evidence is overwhelming that we are.
HA HA HA HA HA HA fake evidence. Fabricated just as the examples I point out above. Scientist behaving badly.
Global warming is a fraud. Yes the globe has warmed and it has cooled and it will and is doing the same again. The whole theory of regulate CO2 to 350 ppm, the so called safe zone, see 350.org is a joke. We are approaching 400 ppm. The temperature has leveled off for the last 10-15 years. Sea level has dropped not increased. Worldwide Tropical cyclones have decreased not increased. Tornado’s, droughts and floods have also decreased. YOUR A FOOL if you accept that any of those have increased. The data is there you just have to see it for yourself to believe it. How can 350 ppm be a safe zone. How can this possibly be a safe zone when the world’s ten deadliest floods occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm.
24 of the deadliest tornado’s happened when CO2 was below 350 ppm.The strongest and deadliest US hurricanes occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm. The only time in recorded hurricane history to have 4 active hurricanes all over the course of several days happened when CO2 was below 350. Nine of the world’s ten deadliest hurricanes and typhoons occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm. As they say everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not to their own set of facts.
Body Blow To German Global Warming Movement! Major Media Outlets Unload On “CO2 Lies!”
http://notrickszone.com/2012/02/06/body-blow-to-german-global-warming-movement-major-media-outlets-unload-on-co2-lies/
What Bob K. and OS said!
Let me make the point again more strongly to all. (Rant?)
We have been “managed” for decades, soon a century, with increasingly effective propaganda. Ninety-nine percent (symbolically at least) of informtion is steered. Santorum sees education as a left-wing indoctrination. A shame that the opposite is true, and no one can effectively challenge him and this lie in the ongoing circus.
What’s my point? Simply, that one should, in the light of these incontrovertible facts (IMHO), analyze every information flow´impacting on your life.
This is quite serious. We can’t and won’t have the time for Descartian philosophizing. But it is a life issue for all of us. And then the inevitable question.: How can this be handled?
This is the major issue for us and our societies. All else, including climate warming is trivia If rectitude (choose your own word) can not be restored, then is it worth living in the Matrix? For us to descend into something related to the USSR is painful to consider, world dominance does not taste that good to me.
We are very lucky actually. We still have our models in the FF’s in sight.
Bob K.
What you say is true in itself.
But politically it amounts to a hill of beans in face of the rabid attacks on both points.
What the “facts” and scientists say are just a red cape to the idiotic bulls pursuing a defeat of Obama, and hopefully a ride back into power, funded thanks due to SpC opening the gates to unlimited and secret contributions. (For all we know, they could be funding some really out of this world stuff.)
Your cocksure confidence in the effect of “facts” is naive, I believe.
If it is so as you believe, then how did we get to here from the New Deal; or pick your own starting point.
Contentiously yours.
John Kindley,
You seem in a better mood today. Good, and please excuse the personal comment. I take those risks at times.
I’m glad you are aware of your situation here.
I can’t speak for others, but the aggressiveness of your post prompted careful analysis of the evidence you referenced ( I think you will agree poorly underpinned) and that historical facts, etc did not support your “case”.
As a perhaps compulsive doubter of the accepted consensus, I am inclined to leave an open door to your supported possibility of evidence suppression.
(how many times have we been screwed by the agencies charged with protecting us, who either sell out or yield to political steering)
But in the meanwhile, we have to live with the polluted waters, food, air, soil, oceans, and medicines with risks as side effects.
I hope you feel that you received an honest hearing here and rebuke based on analysis of facts and not ad hominems.