pacino wrote:most all medical societies state there is no link
AMA, American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute, American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, German Cancer Research Center, Canadian Cancer Society...
(Canadian cancer is polite and apologizes for killing you)
From teh interwebs and teh wikipedia...
Joel Brind, a faculty member at Baruch College in the Department of Natural Sciences, is the primary advocate of an abortion–breast cancer link. Brind is strongly anti-abortion and began lobbying politicians with the claim that abortion caused breast cancer in the early 1990s.
Brind found that his lobbying efforts were not taken seriously because he had not published his findings in the peer-reviewed medical literature. He therefore collaborated with two anti-abortion physicians and a statistician to publish a 1996 article in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. Although not an epidemiologist himself, Brind reviewed existing studies on abortion and breast cancer, which as a collection were inconsistent in methodologies and conclusions. Brind did not conduct any research himself. Brind's paper was criticized in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute for ignoring the role of response bias and for a "blurring of association with causation". Within months, Danish epidemiologists and scientists issued a better study that refuted Brind's conclusions.
Brind blames the lack of support for his findings on a conspiracy, arguing that the National Cancer Institute and other major medical organizations are engaged in a "cover-up" for the purpose of "protecting the abortion industry".
Brind's hypothesis is loosely based on the fact that levels of estrogen, progesterone, and estradiol increase during early pregnancy to produce breast growth in preparation for lactation. He hypothesizes that if this process is interrupted by an abortion, the new breast cells don't mature and thus result in a greater risk of breast cancer.
When Brind had a "spiritual awakening" and converted from Judaism to Christianity he wrote "With a new belief in a meaningful universe, I felt compelled to use science for its noblest, life-saving purpose." IMO, this is fine, even admirable, providing it is conducted in a truly scientific manner and conclusions are not influenced by bias or agenda. But that isn't the case with Brind here. He is basically an agenda-driven scientist.
* Catholic theology identifies abortion as a sin because it is the willful murder of a person, but is forgivable by the grace of God. To warn against sin and to forgive transgressions are two hallmarks of Christian thought, essentially a simultaneous combination of condemning the sin and compassion for the sinner. There's nothing wrong with either doctrine as long as the components of true compassion and forgiveness are present in a proportion equal or greater than the transgression condemnation component.
