To read the tribute to SFC Marcus Muralles, please click here
Monday, May 16, 2005
A Woman's Right To Choose... Poorer Health?
Today, it just so happened that three different stories about abortion caught my attention. When you look at them all together, you get this sinking feeling in your gut.
First, a report from England points out that one in three abortions performed over there is carried out on a woman who has had a prior abortions. The vast majority of abortions are not performed because of the health of mother of baby is in question, but for convneience sake (to delay motherhood). One woman had six abortions in a twelve month period.
Then there is this study found that women who had had an abortion were 1.7 times more likely to have a severely premature (before 28 weeks gestation) delivery in the future. No, this information is not given to women contemplating an abortion (because, until this study, there was no scientific evidence, only annecdotal).
And, finally, the president of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute has authored a paper, refuting claims that there is no increased instance of breast cancer due to abortion.
I think everyone knows where I stand on the subject of abortion. I am Pro-Life. Life is a gift from God, not to be taken away for convenience's sake. But, now... it appears that I am also Anti-Abortion because of the mother's health. There are very rare cases when a doctor might recommend abortion in order to save the mother's life (very, very rare, and it's never a partial-birth abortion. Let's face one simple point- how would inducing labor and then killing the baby as it's being delivered save a woman's life?). These studies seem to indicate that there is more benefit to a woman's health to go ahead and deliver the baby (and, dare I say it? Put the baby up for adoption!) than there would be to have an abortion in almost every case.
Hmmm... wonder if NARAL and abortionmills clinics will provide this information to their clients? Didn't think so.
First, a report from England points out that one in three abortions performed over there is carried out on a woman who has had a prior abortions. The vast majority of abortions are not performed because of the health of mother of baby is in question, but for convneience sake (to delay motherhood). One woman had six abortions in a twelve month period.
Then there is this study found that women who had had an abortion were 1.7 times more likely to have a severely premature (before 28 weeks gestation) delivery in the future. No, this information is not given to women contemplating an abortion (because, until this study, there was no scientific evidence, only annecdotal).
And, finally, the president of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute has authored a paper, refuting claims that there is no increased instance of breast cancer due to abortion.
In particular, Brind cites a widely noticed paper published by Valerie Beral and four other Oxford University scientists in The Lancet in 2004 and statements of the National Cancer Institute in 2003.So... shall we recap? We have women having abortions purely for lifestyle reasons, abortions leading to premature birth and miscarriage, and scientists hiding the fact that there is a link between abortions and breast cancer. Did I miss anything?
The Beral study finding was unequivocal: "Pregnancies that end as a spontaneous or induced abortion do not increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer." The NCI has stated on its website since 2003 "having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman's subsequent risk of developing breast cancer."
"The trouble is, to accept this conclusion, one needs to dismiss almost half a century's worth of data which do show a significant link between abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer," writes Brind.
I think everyone knows where I stand on the subject of abortion. I am Pro-Life. Life is a gift from God, not to be taken away for convenience's sake. But, now... it appears that I am also Anti-Abortion because of the mother's health. There are very rare cases when a doctor might recommend abortion in order to save the mother's life (very, very rare, and it's never a partial-birth abortion. Let's face one simple point- how would inducing labor and then killing the baby as it's being delivered save a woman's life?). These studies seem to indicate that there is more benefit to a woman's health to go ahead and deliver the baby (and, dare I say it? Put the baby up for adoption!) than there would be to have an abortion in almost every case.
Hmmm... wonder if NARAL and abortion
