Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (23025)	1/5/2004 11:25:50 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793717

Thanks for the link. Interesting that the South Dakota web site in question wasn't available. The problem with the environmental warriors is that the reliance on models for some areas of environmental study not amenable to traditional scientific techniques coupled with their zeal causes confusion between belief and fact. That confusion, whether intentional or not, is problematic in other arenas as well, but it shouldn't be in play with this issue of abortion and breast cancer. That link, if there is one, doesn't require models or pseudoscience, just traditional studies. The suggested link hasn't been proven but it's sufficiently interesting to warrant more study. The arguments from those who advocate the link do not include sufficient differentiation between women who get abortions and then never bear children and those who later bear children. They also don't differentiate between pre-menopausal breast cancer and post-menopausal breast cancer, which, like testicular cancer, virtually everyone gets if they just live long enough. IMO, there is enough evidence that medical practitioners counseling patients on abortion would be remiss in not advising women with a family history of pre-menopausal breast cancer of the possible risk. Women in that category go to extreme lengths to reduce their risk--to the point of having pre-emptive mastectomies. They would certainly want to know of the possible link. Seems way premature to me, though, to declare a risk to other women. I would say that your environmental-warrior science comparison would be better applied to the side that wants the ABC warning promulgated than the side that doesn't, although politics seem to me of more interest to both sides than health. It would be very useful to see a comprehensive list of reproductive risk factors, known and suspected. I will look later to see if that site becomes available.