Question for pro-abortionists?

Question

Since it is known that abortion dramatically increases the risk of breast cancer in the mother (around 160%). Other studies show increase risk of depression and suicide (although other studies differ). Why is it not advised to deliver the baby then terminate its life, so that the mother will not undergo unnecessary risk? Is there any reason to oppose this?

Thanks, Aurora, but I was more intrested in the question I asked. What would be wrong with terminating the life after birth, so as to avoid future health risk to the mother?

Jedi, it isn't "my" math. It is the statistics found by studies on this issue.

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/The_Link.htm

Answer 1

Possibly because at that point, it is undeniably human and killing it WOULD be murder. o.O

jedi1josh, his math is fine. A 160% increase means that the chances of breast cancer are multiplied by a factor of 2.6; so if the average risk of breast cancer is 10%, a 160% increase in the chance of breast cancer raises the risk to 26%.

Whether or not his statistics are true is another matter entirely.

Answer 2

Because statistics also show that overpopulation is by far the biggest danger facing our planet in the next 50-100 years. At current growth rates, by mid-century our 6 billion population will be close to 10 billion. That is almost DOUBLE! The planet is already being taxed to the extreme by pollution, over-harvesting of the oceans, and consumption of natural resources. History has proved that human beings are NOT proactive in regards to our environment (ie. birth control.) Since the majority of population growth will occur in rapidly developing, resource poor regions, like Africa & Asia, the strain will especially hard. When a region can not support a population, nature has its own ways of compensating (ie. plagues, famine, etc.) Is this preferrable to breast cancer and depression?

Sometimes, the needs of the many must outweigh the needs of the few. We cannot, in any sense, afford to allow every single conception to result in a person, so abortion, while ethically distasteful to many, is a necessary evil.

Of course there is also the argument that a woman's body can not be legislated, which is of equal merit.

Answer 3

Cigarettes do cause lung cancer, yet there is no formal debate to absolutely outlaw them. It is known that they cause lung cancer, but it's up to the smoker to take the risk. Why can't abortion be the same way? It's up to the mother to take the risk. It's her choice.

If the baby is delivered then terminated, I would call that murder. I'm completely pro-choice, but that's because the fetus is nothing but cells, not a person just yet. It is a person after birth, therefore has rights.

Answer 4

Note, the constitution says all men are born equal. this is when the us gov. says a person is a person and is protected under the law. that would be murder. Also miscarriages happen all the time. whats the studies on that if theres any difference there may be some influence in the outcome of a study. Any study can produce a result a person wants if the study is set up in a way to reach the set result

Answer 5

There is no correlation between having an abortion and getting breast cancer. The only link they've found is people who have children at a younger age are at a slight advantage for not getting breast cancer. Having an abortion does not increase your chances.

Are you seriously asking if we should have the woman deliver the kid, and then kill it? 'Cause that's what it looks like you're saying. Many abortions are done because having the kid would endanger or kill the mother.

Answer 6

you are obviously agains abortion, so why don;t you go pick up your little sign and terrorize all the frightened women entering a clinic.

As for your "question." Until the laws are changed, a woman has the right to choose abortion, period. A baby who has been born and is killed is considered murder, aborting a child by law is not. As for your breast cancer issue, many things make us susceptible to breast cancer, why not ask why we don;t take measures to avoid them?

Answer 7

I've never heard of anyone who was pro-abortion, that is an epithet the anti-choice side made up. If sex education and contraception were readily available then the number of un-planned pregnancies would go down, and the number of abortions with it. If it weren't for the anti-choice people, no one who advocates terrorism (like bombing abortion clinics) has any claim to being pro-life, and their ongoing campaign to deny access to proper education about sexuality and options to kids, abortion clinics would close down because of lack of use. Women use abortion as birth control because they aren't using any other. Anti-choice people insist that if you don't talk about sex, teen-agers won't think of it on their own, they also say that allowing access to disease and birth prevention is giving permition to have sex. Both positions are absurd. Once your child makes the decision to become sexually active it is out of your hands, your choices are do you want them active with kids and AIDS, or do you want them active and healthy? Nothing you can do is going to alter that decision, you can't live their lives for them. I was very frank and open with my daughter, I pointed out risks and considerations, I answered questions and advised, but I also acknowledged that in the end, short of keeping her in a cage, she would make her own choices, and I let her know I would love and accept her either way. The result was that my daughter was a virgin at her wedding. If the anti-abortion crowd is comfortable with murdering health babies you're free to lobby for such a law. I am sure you'll find lots of "Pro-Life" who be glad to do it in the name of reducing abortion.

Answer 8

160% Where did you learn math? At the school for religious know-it-alls. If there were a 100% increase in the chance of getting cancer they would all get cancer. By the way I am against abortion, and me being an atheist helped me come to my decision.

Answer 9

I'm a male.
I don't like abortion, but it's a woman's right to do it.
If I had a daughter, I could garauntee there would be no abortion, because I would not only instruct her on abstinence, but also on protection. And if she ever became pregnant, she could come to me, without fear of judgement.

As far as your "around 160%," whatever bible school teacher told you that lied. That would be a part of the evangelical fundamentalist christian right wing boarderline-islam-like-radicalism propoganda you get fed.

I'm Catholic. We don't jump up and down, faint, throw our hands in the air and act like a bunch of pre-schoolers to see who can be more christian-like.

Answer 10

Yeah your math sucks dude. I'm for a mother having the choice as to what goes on in her womb no matter what the outcome. Freedom is freedom - there's no such thing as partially free. So are you for freedom or against it?