NSR,<p>FYI...there is no link between abortion and breast cancer. There IS a link between never bringing a child to term and breast cancer. That applies to women who have had miscarriages too. Apparently the hormones produced after giving birth (producing milk, etc) tend to ward off breast cancer. If having an abortion means you never have children, then obviously, a woman's chances of getting breast cancer are higher. Still, diet and genetics play a much, much greater role than the decision to bear children.

Student,<p>Check out the facts...<p>28 out of 37 studies show a link between
abortion and breast cancer.<p>13 out of 15 U.S. studies reported a link -- 17 were statistically significant, 16 of which found increased risk -- <p>7 show more than a twofold increase in risk* (seems substantial to me)<p>...from Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer.<p>Please send me imherczeg@ivillage.com "studies" to the contrary.<p>---------------<p> <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>I'm sad that our work culture is situated such that most women are forced to be inordinately dependent upon a man in order to have a family.<hr></blockquote>... is there an implication that it would be best to have "families"... without fathers!... I hope not.<p>If I said "a man is dependent on a woman... in order to have a family"... would that make me sexist?<p> [img]images/icons/smile.gif" border="0[/img] <p>Jim/NSR

Just FYI, the fact that statistics may indicate a "link" in no way implies causation. One of the first rule of statistics is that correlation does not imply causation. You need to be careful where your "facts" are coming from.

Follower, I apologise for continuing the direction the thread has taken. But as a researcher, I just have to provide some balance. And I don't think this is an additonal thing you guys should have to put on your worry list at an already stressed time.<p>Info from National Cancer Institute<p> <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>
The relationship between abortion and breast cancer has been the subject of extensive research. The current body of scientific evidence suggests that women who have had either induced or spontaneous abortions have the same risk as other women for developing breast cancer. Until the mid-1990s, results from studies of breast cancer and induced or spontaneous abortion were inconsistent. Some investigators reported an increase in risk, typically from interview studies of several hundred breast cancer patients compared to other women. Other studies found no evidence of increased risk. <p>Recent large studies, particularly cohort studies, generally show no association between breast cancer risk and previously recorded spontaneous or induced abortions. In a large-scale epidemiologic study reported in The New England Journal of Medicine in 1997, researchers compared data from Danish health registries that included 1.5 million women and more than 10,000 cases of breast cancer. The registry data on abortions was collected before the diagnosis of breast cancer was made. After adjusting the data for several established breast cancer risk factors, the authors found that “induced abortions have no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer.” The strengths of this study include its large size, the ability to account for breast cancer risk factors that may differ between women who have had abortions and those who have not, and the availability of information on abortion from registries rather than having to rely on a woman’s self-reported history of abortion. <p>In 2000 and 2001, additional findings were reported from studies that collected data on abortion history before the breast cancers occurred. These studies showed no increased breast cancer risk in women who had induced abortions. In three of the studies, information on abortion was based on medical records rather than on the woman’s self-report; in another study, interview data was collected before any breast cancer diagnosis. The studies were conducted in different populations of women, and varied in size and the extent of details on established breast cancer risk factors. <p>Most of the early studies necessarily relied on self-reports of induced abortion, which have been shown to differ between breast cancer patients and other women. Other problems with these studies included small numbers of women, questions of comparability between women with breast cancer and those without, inability to separate induced from spontaneous abortions, and incomplete knowledge of other breast cancer risk factors that may have been related to a woman’s history of abortion. <p>Even though it appears that there is no overall association between spontaneous or induced abortion and breast cancer risk, it is possible that an increased or decreased risk could exist in small subgroups of women. For example, the large Danish study found a slightly lower breast cancer risk in women with abortions occurring before 7 weeks gestation, and a slightly higher risk in women who had abortions at 7 or more weeks. The National Cancer Institute is currently funding at least six other studies examining complete pregnancy history, including induced and spontaneous abortion, in relation to the risk of breast cancer. <p>Well-established breast cancer risk factors include age, a family history of breast cancer, an early age at menarche, a late age at menopause, a late age at the time of the first birth of a full-term baby, alcohol consumption, and certain breast conditions. Obesity is a risk factor for breast cancer in postmenopausal women. <p>References: <p>Goldacre MJ, Kurina LM, Seagroatt V, Yeates D. Abortion and breast cancer: A case-control record linkage study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2001; 55:336–7. <p>Lazovich D, Thompson JA, Mink PJ, Sellers TA, Anderson KE. Induced abortion and breast cancer risk. Epidemiology 2000; 11:76–80. <p>Melbye M, Wohlfahrt M, Olsen JH, et al. Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine 1997; 336:81–85. <p>Michels KB, Willett WC. Does induced or spontaneous abortion affect the risk of breast cancer? Epidemiology 1996; 7:521–528. <p>Newcomb PA, Mandelson MT. A record-based evaluation of induced abortion and breast cancer risk (United States). Cancer Causes and Control 2000; 11:777–781. <p>Rookus, MA, van Leeuwen, FE. Induced abortion and risk for breast cancer: Reporting (recall) bias in a Dutch case-control study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1996; 88:1759–1764. <p>Tang M-T C, Weiss NS, Malone KE. Induced abortion in relation to breast cancer among parous women: A birth certificate registry study. Epidemiology 2000; 11:177–180.
<hr></blockquote><p>http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/3_53.htm<p>Again, my best wishes for you both in healing from this...<p>Kathi

"Just FYI, the fact that statistics may indicate a "link" in no way implies causation."<p>exactly my point. <p>NSR,
men do not bear children. They do not do the majority or even half of childcare. Men's careers and/or ability to earn a living are usually enhanced by marriage/children. Just the opposite for women. Men are not encouraged to be financially dependent on women for their survival in order to have a family. If men were, they might have a clue. <p>here's a great experiment for all the guys out there...Quit your job and stay at home for awhile and see what it feels like to be dependent. Do it for a good 5 years at least, then try to find a decent job again. Make sure you go to church (or wherever) and have people tell you you are supposed to be submissive and obedient to your wife and let her make the major decisions--including having something in your body for 9 months that severly impacts your ability to do anything--and could kill you. While you're at it, pretend that the infidelity statistics are reversed...instead of 70% men and 30% women cheating, it is now 70% women who cheat. Think about that all those nights she works late and you are dead tired from taking care of kids all day. Oh, then the coup-de-grace...get a divorce, be the primary care-giver and try to make a living after you've been out of the job market for however long. Have your ex-wife take the kids on weekends and on trips with her new trophy husband.

TS,<p>For someone who has never had or raised children you have a lot to say about what anyone much less men feel. Also many of your statistics are wrong, and frankly completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.<p>For all of your sense of balance, there seems to be no concept in your mind that men just might want and love children.<p>I know this is a sad time for Follower, it may or may not be a sad time for his W. Frankly we don't know the reasons for her decision, as SweetJane?? suggested it may be that the child was not his.<p>I don't know nor do you. All he asked for was some help and support. Instead he got lectures about what he and his W should do and shouldn't do. I don't think this thread has been one of the real bright moments in the history of this forum.<p>I have nothing further to offer here, just great sorrow that this decision and the situation surrounding it (whatever it was) came to pass.<p>God Bless,<p>JL

National Cancer Institute Shamelessly Carries on Cover-Up<p>The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, an international women&#8217;s organization, accused the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of suppressing the truth about research exploring the abortion-breast cancer link in its recently revised fact sheet. The group&#8217;s president, Karen Malec, said: "The NCI is conducting a shameless campaign to conceal the truth about research paid for by U.S. taxpayers." <p>Biological evidence and 28 out of 37 studies done in different parts of the world since 1957 associate abortion with the disease. Thirteen of 15 studies done in the U.S. have confirmed a link. Although most of these were funded by the NCI, the new fact sheet cites only two U.S. studies. [1] Our website lists the studies at <www.AbortionBreastCancer.com>. <p>"This isn&#8217;t the first time that the agency has lied to women," said Malec. "Its website said in 1999 that only animal research had provided a basis for the relationship between abortion and the disease, although 26 of 32 studies conducted on women in a number of countries had reported risk elevations by then. <p>In 1998, the NCI was denounced by a physician, Congressman Tom Coburn, who asserted that the agency had deceived the public about the research and that its fact sheet was &#8216;not scientifically driven, on this issue, but is more politically driven....&#8217; <p>"Why should women believe an agency with this kind of track record?" asked Mrs. Malec. <p>The latest fact sheet says, in part, "The current body of scientific evidence suggests that women who have had either induced or spontaneous abortions have the same risk as other women for developing breast cancer. Until the mid-1990s, results from studies of breast cancer and induced or spontaneous abortion were inconsistent. Some investigators reported an increase in risk, typically from interview studies of several hundred breast cancer patients compared to other women. Other studies found no evidence of increased risk." <p>To set the record straight, 18 out of 23 studies published by 1996 had found risk elevations. Seven studies had reported a more than twofold increased risk, 3 of which were American studies. The NCI continues to erroneously treat miscarriage and abortion as if their effects on breast cancer risk were one in the same. Most miscarriages do not result in an increased risk because of an insufficiency of estrogen, a known tumor promoter. <p>California obstetrician-gynecologist, Frank Joseph, said "In induced abortions, there is an elevated estrogen level. In spontaneous abortions, the level is low. Why is the NCI confused on this issue?" <p>The fact sheet makes no mention of the 1989 Howe study. As a prospective study, it did not rely on self-reported histories of abortion, but on medical records. Howe et al. reported a 90% increased risk for women in New York. [2] "The NCI would, apparently, rather forget about Howe," said Mrs. Malec. "It&#8217;s not even cited, nor are 31 other studies exploring the link. Most notably, the only study specifically commissioned by the NCI, Daling et al., was omitted." [3] <p>Dr. Joseph concluded, "For the NCI to ignore certain studies that have found that abortions do increase the risk of breast cancer, just suit their political agenda is reprehensible." <p> Joel Brind, Ph.D., president of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, identifies the following statement on the NCI fact sheet as a lie: "Most of the early studies necessarily relied on self-reports of induced abortion, which have been shown to differ between breast cancer patients and other women." <p>The study used by the NCI as evidence to support its assertion that patients are more likely to truthfully report their abortions than healthy women, Tang et al. 2000, actually reported quite the opposite finding in its abstract. The Tang study said, "The authors&#8217; data do not suggest that controls are more reluctant to report a history of induced abortion than are women with breast cancer." For this reason, the NCI cannot rely on Tang to disregard the findings of the many studies relying on self-reporting. [4] <p>The fact sheet cites several shortcomings which it alleges are inherent in the studies implicating abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer. Dr. Brind remarked, "Ironically, the same studies that the NCI depends upon as primary evidence for its claim that abortion does not elevate a woman&#8217;s risk of breast cancer are also the studies which embody those very shortcomings. For example, the NCI cites problems with small numbers of women and questions of comparability between patients and healthy women as being difficulties with the research linking abortion with breast cancer, yet Lazovich et al. (2000) and Newcomb and Mandelson (2000) were exceptionally small studies, based on only 26 and 23 patients who'd had an abortion, respectively. Questions of comparability are glaring with the Goldacre (2001) and Melbye (1997) studies. Goldacre's study did not count breast cancer patients whose abortions had taken place outside of National Health Service Hospitals. Consequently, most of the women in the Goldacre study who'd actually had an abortion are misclassified as not having had an abortion. That's deja vu from the Melbye study." [5,6] <p>Mrs. Malec said, "The NCI depends on Congress for its budget and must be careful not to antagonize the powers-that-be whose hands are in the pockets of the abortion industry. It doesn&#8217;t surprise me at all that this new fact sheet was produced just in time for the false advertising lawsuit against a Fargo, North Dakota clinic which goes to trial on March 25, 2002. The clinic, which depends on the spurious statements of the NCI, is being sued for having misrepresentated the medical research in a pamphlet given to its patients. In addition, Women&#8217;s E News reported in a February article that the NCI would be revising its fact sheet. This creates the appearance of collusion between the abortion industry and the NCI because this news organization is funded, in part, by the NOW Legal Defense Fund." <p>Mississippi radiation oncologist, Scott Moon, lamented that women are being denied the opportunity to receive risk reduction drugs and to give their informed consent for their abortions in order to benefit the abortion industry. He opined, "Even if one is not convinced that there is a definite link between (abortion and breast cancer), shouldn&#8217;t we err on the side of caution? Are we doing more harm by providing a woman with too much information or by censoring out information about a potentially life-threatening side effect from her decision making process?" <p>The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women&#8217;s organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer. <p>References 1. Lazovich et al (2000) Epidemiology, 11:76-80; Newcomb et al. (2000) Cancer Causes and Control, 11:777-781. 2. Howe et al. (1989) Int J Epidem 18:300-4. 3. Daling et al. J Natl Cancer Inst (1994) 86(21):1584-92. 4. Tang, et al. Epidemiology (2000), 11:177-180. 5. Goldacre MJ et al., J Epidem Community Health (2001) 55:336-7. 6. Melbye et al. N Engl J Med (1997) 336(2):81-5. <p>
=========================<p>Risk-factor is not the same as "causuality"...
...true!<p>But does that imply the increased risk-factors are to be ignore?

TS,<p>"...here's a great experiment for all the guys out there...Quit your job and stay at home for awhile..."<p>I was layed off...(corporate downsizing didn't seem to care if I were a single parent - man or woman)<p>I didn't do it for 5 years... but 1 year (out of work... limited income...) looking for an equivolent position... (there was none!)... and then having to make a career change with a 25%+ cut in pay...
...a bit of challenge with a $20K legal bill to gain custody of my kids... more on that another day!<p>We (you TS and I) went throught the issue of "submission" before...
...marriage should be have a true dual role of "submission" between H and W. You're right that many ignorant men... see it as a right to abuse their Ws and families... ignorance for some men (and some women too) is hard to overcome!<p>"Having something in your body for 9 months... and could kill you..."
...sounds like what Professor Peter Swinger (Princeton U.) preachers... pregnancy is a "disease"!... and abortion is cure!... check it out Princeton Professor Swinger.<p>If statistics are just measures of "risk-factor's"...
...then obviously... my exW missed out on who should have been the one having the affair.<p>Working late at night...being tired...
...oh yes... I remember... my colicky daughter...
...who was it that was up most the night...
...not my W... not my SAH W!<p>Oh yes... the divorce.... I paid $20K+... she paid $1K!...
...or should I say... she skipped payment on $12K+!...
...after "faking a custody battle"... as I found out later!<p>I do appreciate the work that single parent mom's do...
...more and more each day....
...their task is a daunting one...
...and what they accomplish is truly outstanding!
...but single parent dad's have their challenges as well!<p>Oh yes...
"Have your ex-wife take the kids on weekends and on trips with her new trophy husband"...
...yep... she does... every other weekend!<p>There are two sides to most coins.<p> [img]images/icons/smile.gif" border="0[/img] <p>Jim/NSR

JL,<p>Having had an abortion and knowing several women who have had abortions, my comments are very relevant. If Follower wants to understand his wife, then he could stand to hear from women who have been through it. <p>Whether men love their children or not is irrelevant. Until they come out of a man's body, the woman will always be more important. <p>and...no, I don't have children and won't until I can take care of them by myself. I won't be financially or domestically dependent on a man to have a family. <p>NSR,
pregnancy is not a disease. It is also not a blessing unless the mother is healthy and the child can be cared for after it is born.<p>[ April 13, 2002: Message edited by: TheStudent ]</p>

Follower?<p>Are you there?<p>What's happening man?<p>How are you coping?<p>just thinking of you,<p>-AD

UPDATE:
Again, thanks to all that's been there for me - sharing your past experiences and giving my mind some peace. It helps knowing that I was not alone. THANKS!<p>Lately, I've been beating myself up. Turning my life back to alcohol. Everything has been hard to cope with. At this time, my W acts as though nothing ever happened. I'm not sure if that's a way to stay away from dwelling over what's happened, or whatever else. Everything is going fine with the family. But no one knows my frustrations that I keep hidden. Sometimes I find my W by herself gazing off. When I ask "what's wrong", she says that she was "just thinking". I asked her how she feels "now" having had the A. She says she has regrets, but feels she did the right thing. Now that just erks me and frustrates me.<p>Sometimes I feel like leaving her. But leaving her would mean... leaving the family.<p>Am I being immature?