Loren Pechtel

dk: In fairness, a narrow focus on abortion ignores the tumultuous 1960-70s, sexual revolution, that shredded many (most) political, institutional and cultural norms like papier-mâché dolls. Since abortion was legalized in 1972 the rate of invasive breast cancer in the US has increased 50% to affect 1 in 9 American women.
Loren: But abortion didn't increase 50% in that time frame.


The rest of your post is just bashing feminism anad has nothing to do with abortion. You're trying to tar by association.

Loren Pechtel

dk: 1) There’s no basis for a comparison, 2) Ireland is an exception to the rule 3) Old Europe, with the exception of Britain, can’t raise enough children to protect their borders, maintain infrastructure or operate industry. When the baby boomers retire Old Europe faces a virtual population implosion.
Loren: So, abortion is wrong because they need more children? Burden the unlucky ones with unwanted children? Sounds like social policy for a sadist!
If the population decline is causing problems then you liberalize immigration laws. End of problem.

Loren: You listed a bunch of things that have no business in the abortion debate. Basically you're saying that opposing abortion is good because it's a position held by those who you feel hold other good positions. I forget what this fallacy is called but it's one of the standard logical fallacies.
dk: This isn’t an abortion debate, it is a debate about the link between abortion and breast cancer.
Loren: Digging your grave deeper, I see.

dk: On the other hand everyone is against breast cancer. My only issue on this thread is… that breast cancer has been politicized by the abortion issue, and demonstrates what happens when politics and science collide.
Loren: You are assuming the connection is there despite the very shaky evidence.
dk: I haven’t ventured an opinion one way or the other, I don’t have one. I simply maintain the politics run rough shod over the science.
Loren: Why, because most people don't think much of your evidence? We are tired of the PL's eternal crying wolf.

Loren: Where are you getting your data? Unwanted pregnancy rates have been dropping for many years.
dk: I just got done bemoaning unwanted pregnancy as a disparaging term. Rather than unwanted pregnancy, a better term is unplanned. For example what appears to be an unwanted pregnancy this morning, ;tomorrow may become a bundle of joy.
Loren: I'll agree that there are some cases like this. Having a baby doesn't magically make you want one, though.
dk: Hey, we agree on something, every day’ starts anew. Any mother with a teenager that says she never had a bad day with the kid is a saint, a liar or has a full time nanny. I can’t imagine most women want to be pregnant, but pregnancy doesn’t define motherhood or womanhood.
Loren: If you keep digging your grave like this you'll find yourself in China!

dk: I said unwanted children because the number of abused, neglected and abandoned children provides a verifiable and meaningful indicator, in my opinion.
Loren: Yeah--a good indication of what happens when you make abortion hard to get.
dk: There are more unwanted children in the US today than when abortion was illegal in 1970. Heck, today 1 in 20 kids doesn’t even live with a biological parent.
Loren: So? This has nothing to do with abortion. It has to do with welfare dependancy and the drug war.

dk

dk: 1) There’s no basis for a comparison, 2) Ireland is an exception to the rule 3) Old Europe, with the exception of Britain, can’t raise enough children to protect their borders, maintain infrastructure or operate industry. When the baby boomers retire Old Europe faces a virtual population implosion.
Loren: So, abortion is wrong because they need more children? Burden the unlucky ones with unwanted children? Sounds like social policy for a sadist!
If the population decline is causing problems then you liberalize immigration laws. End of problem.
dk: Abortion is wrong because 1) it deprives human beings of a right to life. 2) makes personhood subjective 3) disorders inalienable rights placing a mother’s liberty rights above the fetuses right to life. You’re the one that brought up Old Europe. Old Europe has also seen a rise in the incidence of Breast Cancer. Not that I mind straying off topic, but even I will reel it in from time to time.

Loren: You listed a bunch of things that have no business in the abortion debate. Basically you're saying that opposing abortion is good because it's a position held by those who you feel hold other good positions. I forget what this fallacy is called but it's one of the standard logical fallacies.
dk: This isn’t an abortion debate, it is a debate about the link between abortion and breast cancer.
Loren: Digging your grave deeper, I see.
dk: I don’t follow…

dk: I haven’t ventured an opinion one way or the other, I don’t have one. I simply maintain the politics run rough shod over the science.
Loren: Why, because most people don't think much of your evidence? We are tired of the PL's eternal crying wolf.
dk: Loren it really doesn’t much matter what I personally think, there are 10s of millions of people that believe science has become a political tool by NAZI feminists that have no scruples. I have seen a lot of evidence that support the premise. You may want to believe the unethical conduct by female scientists imitates men, and I don’t disagree. But when science and politics collide, science gets trashed.

dk: Hey, we agree on something, every day’ starts anew. Any mother with a teenager that says she never had a bad day with the kid is a saint, a liar or has a full time nanny. I can’t imagine most women want to be pregnant, but pregnancy doesn’t define motherhood or womanhood.
Loren: If you keep digging your grave like this you'll find yourself in China!
dk: I don’t follow…

dk: There are more unwanted children in the US today than when abortion was illegal in 1970. Heck, today 1 in 20 kids doesn’t even live with a biological parent.
Loren: So? This has nothing to do with abortion. It has to do with welfare dependancy and the drug war.
dk: How can you be so sure, wasn’t it Margaret Sanger that said, “Every child a wanted child”. I’ll grant you the 60s and 70s were so tumultuous that science can’t see the forest for the trees.

Loren Pechtel

dk: 1) There’s no basis for a comparison, 2) Ireland is an exception to the rule 3) Old Europe, with the exception of Britain, can’t raise enough children to protect their borders, maintain infrastructure or operate industry. When the baby boomers retire Old Europe faces a virtual population implosion.
Loren: So, abortion is wrong because they need more children? Burden the unlucky ones with unwanted children? Sounds like social policy for a sadist!
If the population decline is causing problems then you liberalize immigration laws. End of problem.
dk: Abortion is wrong because 1) it deprives human beings of a right to life. 2) makes personhood subjective 3) disorders inalienable rights placing a mother’s liberty rights above the fetuses right to life. You’re the one that brought up Old Europe. Old Europe has also seen a rise in the incidence of Breast Cancer. Not that I mind straying off topic, but even I will reel it in from time to time.
Loren: Why don't you try actually addressing the point?

Loren: You listed a bunch of things that have no business in the abortion debate. Basically you're saying that opposing abortion is good because it's a position held by those who you feel hold other good positions. I forget what this fallacy is called but it's one of the standard logical fallacies.
dk: This isn’t an abortion debate, it is a debate about the link between abortion and breast cancer.
Loren: Digging your grave deeper, I see.
dk: I don’t follow…
Loren: I was referring to your totally ignoring what you are replying to.

dk: Loren it really doesn’t much matter what I personally think, there are 10s of millions of people that believe science has become a political tool by NAZI feminists that have no scruples. I have seen a lot of evidence that support the premise. You may want to believe the unethical conduct by female scientists imitates men, and I don’t disagree. But when science and politics collide, science gets trashed.
Loren: There's a lot of people who have been lied to to think that.

dk: Hey, we agree on something, every day’ starts anew. Any mother with a teenager that says she never had a bad day with the kid is a saint, a liar or has a full time nanny. I can’t imagine most women want to be pregnant, but pregnancy doesn’t define motherhood or womanhood.
Loren: If you keep digging your grave like this you'll find yourself in China!
dk: I don’t follow…
Loren: You keep presenting arguments unrelated to the topic or whhat you are replying to.

dk: There are more unwanted children in the US today than when abortion was illegal in 1970. Heck, today 1 in 20 kids doesn’t even live with a biological parent.
Loren: So? This has nothing to do with abortion. It has to do with welfare dependancy and the drug war.
dk: How can you be so sure, wasn’t it Margaret Sanger that said, “Every child a wanted child”. I’ll grant you the 60s and 70s were so tumultuous that science can’t see the forest for the trees.
Loren: You mean you favor unwanted children? As punishment for those women whose behavior you don't approve of?

dk

Abortion’s been a hot political topic since estrogen was synthesized, and tested under unethical immoral circumstances by PC activists. My point is simple… when science and politics collide science takes a beating.
I can’t possible respond to a statement I don’t follow. This isn’t an abortion debate. The discussion essentially asks what the controversy “science links breast cancer to abortion” means. PL and PC people read the same statement, and for some reason blame one another for it. I mean to say…When science and politics collide, science gets trashed.
I'd say… Many people use science to confirm their convictions, and ignore science otherwise. I can give a list of PC scientists that used fallacious data, methods and ethics to advance their private agenda.
Ok what’s this thread about…
“HOUSTON -- Texas approved one of the nation's most sweeping abortion counseling laws Wednesday, requiring doctors, among other things, to warn women that abortion might lead to breast cancer.
That link, however, does not exist, according to the American Cancer Society and federal government researcher”
This thread is about the political and scientific controversy, “abortion might lead to breast cancer”. The ACS says no, other scientists say yes. Not surprising PL people say “Yes there is a link”, and PC people say, “No, a link does not exist”. Does this make PL or PC people irrational, no…because science has a history full of hidden agendas and scandal i.e. scientists that conceive data, concepts and forms, manipulate data, and design studies to misrepresent a personal bias as a scientific fact. The radical feminists movement has been caught red handed on several occasions. That’s what happens when science and politics collide.
Frankly I can’t conceive of an unwanted child, can you. Certainly motherhood, fatherhood and childhood come with burdens and uncertainties some people might interpret as a punishment, but that would be wrong thinking unless life itself has becomes a punishment. I think you’ve inadvertently come across something, an explanation for depression. This takes off topic again.

Dr Rick

...and since Nixon resigned the White House, the first Harpoon Missile was launched from a P-3 aircraft, and the Pirates' Gene Alley walked bases-loaded, beating the Padres 1-0 in 18th.

By the way, most estrogen-replacement therapy isn't "synthesized"; for years, it's been extracted from the urine of pregnant mares (hence the brandname, Premarin).

When dk collides with reality, dk takes a beating.

Loren Pechtel

The title of this thread is about abortion and breast cancer.

Thus things like Ireland being the only country in western Europe with a replacement-level birthrate is irrelevant.

The other "good" things supported by the PL organizations are irrelevant.

You haven't done a very good job of supporting this point. The data you provided has two big flaws: From what's given in the report I see no way to exclude the null case--it certainly seems to fall within the 95% confidence interval. Second, the research does not appear to be distinguishing abortion from no pregnancy. It's known that childbirth has a protective effect therefore comparing abortion to childbirth is sure to show something--but it's meaningless.

Your utter blindness isn't an argument against abortion. There certainly are unwanted children!

I'm saying that making her raise a child that she's not ready for and does not want is a punishment.

dk

dk: I can’t possible respond to a statement I don’t follow. This isn’t an abortion debate. The discussion essentially asks what the controversy “science links breast cancer to abortion” means. PL and PC people read the same statement, and for some reason blame one another for it. I mean to say…When science and politics collide, science gets trashed.
Loren: The title of this thread is about abortion and breast cancer.
Thus things like Ireland being the only country in western Europe with a replacement-level birthrate is irrelevant.
The other "good" things supported by the PL organizations are irrelevant.
dk: You brought up Europe, I brought up Ireland to refute you’re claims about Europe. There are PC and PL supporters in Europe and Ireland.

dk: This thread is about the political and scientific controversy, “abortion might lead to breast cancer”. The ACS says no, other scientists say yes. Not surprising PL people say “Yes there is a link”, and PC people say, “No, a link does not exist”. Does this make PL or PC people irrational, no…because science has a history full of hidden agendas and scandal i.e. scientists that conceive data, concepts and forms, manipulate data, and design studies to misrepresent a personal bias as a scientific fact. The radical feminists movement has been caught red handed on several occasions. That’s what happens when science and politics collide.
Loren: You haven't done a very good job of supporting this point. The data you provided has two big flaws: From what's given in the report I see no way to exclude the null case--it certainly seems to fall within the 95% confidence interval. Second, the research does not appear to be distinguishing abortion from no pregnancy. It's known that childbirth has a protective effect therefore comparing abortion to childbirth is sure to show something--but it's meaningless.
dk: The research does distinguish between 1) never pregnant 2) induced abortion 3) spontaneous abortion and 4) delay of first full term delivery.

• “Induced abortion increases breast cancer risk independently of its effect in delaying first full term pregnancy.” - Joel Brind, Ph.D., Professor of Endocrinology, Text of Oral Testimony given before the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration at its Public Meeting of July 19, 1996
• A crucial feature of Brind’s study was his careful separation of the independent effects of abortion on a woman’s breast cancer risk from the previously-known risk of delaying her first full-term completed pregnancy. - Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer by: Paul Ranalli, MD, Canadian Physicians for Life

The meta-analysis tags… “effects of excessive estradiol exposure“… suggesting it is possible for hormonal treatments to greatly reduce the risk of breast cancer.

dk: Frankly I can’t conceive of an unwanted child, can you. Certainly motherhood, fatherhood and childhood come with burdens and uncertainties some people might interpret as a punishment, but that would be wrong thinking unless life itself has becomes a punishment. I think you’ve inadvertently come across something, an explanation for depression. This takes off topic again.
Loren: Your utter blindness isn't an argument against abortion. There certainly are unwanted children!
dk: I’m not arguing against abortion, but since abortion has been legalized the number of unwanted children has skyrocketed. Margaret Sanger rationalized abortion on the mantra said, “Every Child a wanted Child”. She was a snake oil salesman. In a PL world the idea of abortion as “a cure for unwanted children” is absurd. The idea was clearly the calamitous brainchild of PC social engineers that assert “the wanton destruction of human life” fixes and empowers people.

Loren: I'm saying that making her raise a child that she's not ready for and does not want is a punishment.
dk: I’m not sure where you got the idea that children are a punishment, it had to be from your PC handlers.

dk

I love you Dr. Rick,

• 1956 Gregory Pincus, his colleague Dr. Min Chuh Chang and Dr. John Rock, gynecologist from Harvard, conduct the first trials with 60 female volunteers. In the same year, Pincus carries out the first large trial with 6,000 participants in Puerto Rico and Haiti - successfully.
• 1960 Enovid®, produced by US company Searle, is registered as a contraceptive in the United States.
• 1968 The student revolt and the sexual revolution alter the situation. The pill becomes a symbol for societal change in the Western world. Sexuality and contraception are for the first time discussed publicly. The pill represents liberated sexuality. People - mainly women - fight for equal rights and demonstrate on the streets. Our society still profits from this today. "Freedom for the Pill!" is the title headline of the periodical "konkret" in July
• 1968. The magazine asks its readers to tell them the addresses of doctors who are prepared to prescribe the pill to unmarried women. The response is overwhelming; the editors are flooded with letters. The editorial office of "konkret" becomes a sought-after contact point, without having intended this.
• 1970's The sexual revolution shows its effects. The pill is no longer a bone of contention Millions of women use it as a matter of course, which now leads to quite another problem. On 11th June 1971, the German weekly paper "Die Zeit" writes: "Panic through the Pill". Decreasing numbers of births in both East and West lead to uncertainties; the contraceptive is accused of causing "the extinction of Germans". This is a myth, as is discovered later in scientific and demographic discussions.

Abortion was judicated in 1972 as cure for pregnant college coeds that suffered from failed pills, and thus began the cultural war between the "New Left" and everybody else.

Dr Rick

We never seem to talk anymore...

You probably don't even remember our anniversary.