Abortion studies suffer methodology shortfalls
The article looking at the medical literature relating to abortion that ran in the Feb. 11 edition of the Martlet brought up some points that need to be responded to.
For starters, the information presented on the supposed increased risk of breast cancer after abortion is shockingly misinformed and unscientific. Yes, knowledge of medical research is important, but not all studies are credible or useful. Unfortunately, the abortion issue has attracted more than its fair share of poor methodology.
There is a large body of conflicting research on the alleged abortion/breast cancer link going back over 40 years, but many studies are flawed and essentially worthless, especially older ones.
The most common errors are recall bias, small or non-random samples, non-matching control groups and wrong assumptions that correlation equals causation.
A comprehensive 2003 review of the evidence by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and over 100 of the world’s leading experts on pregnancy and breast cancer risk concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of breast cancer. Reputable health agencies all continue to support this conclusion, including the World Health Organization, American Cancer Society, and Canadian Cancer Society.
The author mentions a recent study that concluded that abortion raises the risk of triple-negative breast cancer, but doesn’t explain that this is a rare type that typically strikes women under 40 years of age.
The overall conclusion that abortion does not lead to breast cancer has not changed. As Kathi Malone, one of the study authors, stated: “The weight of scientific evidence to date strongly indicates that abortion doesn’t increase the risk of breast cancer.” She also stated: “There are no new findings related to induced abortion in this paper” because the abortion data used in the study was taken from older studies in the 1980s and 1990s.
To put things in perspective, a 40 per cent increase in risk is not considered substantial in the field of epidemiology — a woman’s risk of getting breast cancer increases by 200-300 per cent if her mother had breast cancer.
Further, the statistical adjustments the researchers used to arrive at the 40 per cent figure may simply be an error caused by not accounting for all possible factors that might be contributing to the increased risk. The abortion data was apparently not adjusted for important factors like income or education.
Speaking of these older studies from the ‘80s and ‘90s, most of them obtained women’s abortion history by interviewing them. But when women self-report their abortion, it has been shown that they under-report past abortions by 20 to 80 per cent, depending on the interview circumstances.
This is because women with diseases that may be linked to past behaviours are much more likely to admit to those past behaviours, since they’re looking for answers. Women acting as controls are not as inclined to admit to strangers that they’ve done something in the past that might be disapproved of, especially when they have no stake in the outcome.
Conclusions from such flawed methodology are not justified. The article mentions other studies that found increased risks of low birth weight, premature birth, and mental health problems after an abortion.
By and large, these studies suffer from the flaws listed above, especially the common problem of confusing correlation with causation.
Correlation means some other factor could be causing the negative effect, not abortion. For example, women with planned pregnancies tend to be in better physical and/or mental health compared to women who have abortions, leading to differences in outcome that should not be attributed to the birth or abortion itself.
Related to this, many studies have not used an appropriate control group for comparison purposes, which would be a group of women who carried to term after being denied an abortion.
Such women, and their unwanted children, often do experience significant problems.
It’s true that patients must be given all the information necessary to make an informed decision about abortion.
The medical profession already does this, but they supply accurate information based on the best scientific evidence.
It would be irresponsible and unethical to frighten women with false or unsubstantiated claims of medical risk.
Joyce Arthur is the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada Co-ordinator
40 Comments
The Martlet has an open comments policy and will endeavour to promote healthy discussion. We strive to act as an agent of constructive social change and will remove racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise oppressive comments.
Leave a Comment
Bahram Farzady Feb. 25, 2010, 2:39 a.m.
Oh, and they were so frightened! <-- [sarcasm]
Your information and reasoning are clearly right up until that point though. Abortion is obviously far safer than actually giving birth (and I'd imagine, less painful as well).
Doesn't freedom of expression work great though? Someone says something false and someone else clears it up.
It would be better if the misinformation was never out there in the first place (obviously) but what can I say? I just don't think we'll find that benevolent dictator for the perfect government. At least, certainly not amongst the UVSS.
Bahram Farzady Feb. 25, 2010, 2:39 a.m.
Oh, and they were so frightened! <-- [sarcasm]
Your information and reasoning are clearly right up until that point though. Abortion is obviously far safer than actually giving birth (and I'd imagine, less painful as well).
Doesn't freedom of expression work great though? Someone says something false and someone else clears it up.
It would be better if the misinformation was never out there in the first place (obviously) but what can I say? I just don't think we'll find that benevolent dictator for the perfect government. At least, certainly not amongst the UVSS.
Liz Feb. 25, 2010, 8:30 p.m.
There are hundreds of studies out there with varying results. People should do research themselves rather than simply agreeing with biased opinion articles. Joyce Arthur is part of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada and therefore is obligated to support any studies that say that abortion does not harm women. Pro-Life advocates will support those studies that show a link. I personally believe that if there are studies that show a link, that is proof that there is at least some risk. But my main point is this: do your own research! Isn't that something you are supposed to learn while at university!
Liz Feb. 25, 2010, 8:30 p.m.
There are hundreds of studies out there with varying results. People should do research themselves rather than simply agreeing with biased opinion articles. Joyce Arthur is part of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada and therefore is obligated to support any studies that say that abortion does not harm women. Pro-Life advocates will support those studies that show a link. I personally believe that if there are studies that show a link, that is proof that there is at least some risk. But my main point is this: do your own research! Isn't that something you are supposed to learn while at university!
Bahram Farzady Feb. 26, 2010, 12:16 a.m.
I don't think Arthur disagrees. Also, that she works or volunteers with a certain group does not prove any sort of bias in the content of the article. For that you have to actually find some proof of bias in her writing.
You seem to think that since some poorly done studies say one thing and betters ones say another, it's a sort of a wash. It's not.
Isn't that something you are supposed to learn while at university?
Bahram Farzady Feb. 26, 2010, 12:16 a.m.
I don't think Arthur disagrees. Also, that she works or volunteers with a certain group does not prove any sort of bias in the content of the article. For that you have to actually find some proof of bias in her writing.
You seem to think that since some poorly done studies say one thing and betters ones say another, it's a sort of a wash. It's not.
Isn't that something you are supposed to learn while at university?
Del Feb. 26, 2010, 3:17 a.m.
Hey Bahram,
Unfortunately another thing that you may learn once you finish your undergraduate degree and get out into the world of research (if you should decide to do that) is that politics too often gets mixed up into the science. Findings that go against the status quo on taboo subjects simply do not get published. The risks of political and financial loss are just too high. Abortion is certainly one such taboo subject, but it also happens in what are perceived to be very mundane areas of research as well.
An example of the problem comes in Ms. Arthur's own article here. For example, she calls for a control of
a group of women who carried to term after being denied an abortion. Can you imagine such a study even being possible? There is no way that it could happen in North America: groups like Joyce Arthur's wouldn't allow it. It probably couldn't be carried out in any other country either. Most ethics boards in Western universities probably wouldn't allow researchers to participate in such a study. Not that I agree that Ms. Arthur's criteria for a control in this case is a good one. It depends on what you are controlling for and what it is that you want to study.You charge Liz with trying to say
its all a washbecause she gives thebadresearch that is unfavourable toward abortion the same weight as thegoodresearch that is favourable, or neutral, toward it. But, really, why should we trust Ms. Arthur's research over anyone else's? You don't have to find bias in this particular writing to distrust what she has to say. You can look into what she has written previously. I don't mean any disrespect, but I honestly don't trust her as a researcher. I don't think that she is a particularly cogent writer. She's made pretense to be a Biblical scholar inAnti-Choicers Don't Have a Biblical Leg to Stand On. She has made wildly contradictory claims as well. For example, inWhy the Christian Right Wages War Against Abortionshe tries to claim that Catholics are against abortion because theyneed as many little Catholics running around as possible,while at the same time claiming:What they really want to do is stop sex.Now, I don't know what your particular view on religion is, but it is a pretty hard to make the case that a group of people would be so dumb as to think they can populate the world whilst at the same time abolishing sex.One other reason to distrust Ms. Arthur as a critic about research on abortion is the way that she herself critiques it. For example, at the recent debate regarding YPY's status and funding, she attempted to discredit the research that has found a greater incidence of depression in women that have undergone at least one abortion. She tried to discredit it by saying,
The greatest predictor of future depression is a past history of depression.Really? That's like saying,The greatest predictor that a man will be a persistent drunk is that he is an alcoholic.That is, it says nothing.Now, as for my own experience, which is admittedly 100% anecdotal and lacks scientific rigor, I have had enough encounters with women who have undergone abortions to know that depression is a real and serious risk. I do feel very uneasy when people like Ms. Arthur try to make the claim that these poor women's experiences are invalid and that other women shouldn't be told the risks.
Del Feb. 26, 2010, 3:17 a.m.
Hey Bahram,
Unfortunately another thing that you may learn once you finish your undergraduate degree and get out into the world of research (if you should decide to do that) is that politics too often gets mixed up into the science. Findings that go against the status quo on taboo subjects simply do not get published. The risks of political and financial loss are just too high. Abortion is certainly one such taboo subject, but it also happens in what are perceived to be very mundane areas of research as well.
An example of the problem comes in Ms. Arthur's own article here. For example, she calls for a control of
a group of women who carried to term after being denied an abortion. Can you imagine such a study even being possible? There is no way that it could happen in North America: groups like Joyce Arthur's wouldn't allow it. It probably couldn't be carried out in any other country either. Most ethics boards in Western universities probably wouldn't allow researchers to participate in such a study. Not that I agree that Ms. Arthur's criteria for a control in this case is a good one. It depends on what you are controlling for and what it is that you want to study.You charge Liz with trying to say
its all a washbecause she gives thebadresearch that is unfavourable toward abortion the same weight as thegoodresearch that is favourable, or neutral, toward it. But, really, why should we trust Ms. Arthur's research over anyone else's? You don't have to find bias in this particular writing to distrust what she has to say. You can look into what she has written previously. I don't mean any disrespect, but I honestly don't trust her as a researcher. I don't think that she is a particularly cogent writer. She's made pretense to be a Biblical scholar inAnti-Choicers Don't Have a Biblical Leg to Stand On. She has made wildly contradictory claims as well. For example, inWhy the Christian Right Wages War Against Abortionshe tries to claim that Catholics are against abortion because theyneed as many little Catholics running around as possible,while at the same time claiming:What they really want to do is stop sex.Now, I don't know what your particular view on religion is, but it is a pretty hard to make the case that a group of people would be so dumb as to think they can populate the world whilst at the same time abolishing sex.One other reason to distrust Ms. Arthur as a critic about research on abortion is the way that she herself critiques it. For example, at the recent debate regarding YPY's status and funding, she attempted to discredit the research that has found a greater incidence of depression in women that have undergone at least one abortion. She tried to discredit it by saying,
The greatest predictor of future depression is a past history of depression.Really? That's like saying,The greatest predictor that a man will be a persistent drunk is that he is an alcoholic.That is, it says nothing.Now, as for my own experience, which is admittedly 100% anecdotal and lacks scientific rigor, I have had enough encounters with women who have undergone abortions to know that depression is a real and serious risk. I do feel very uneasy when people like Ms. Arthur try to make the claim that these poor women's experiences are invalid and that other women shouldn't be told the risks.
Del Feb. 26, 2010, 3:43 a.m.
I do think that this article is worth engaging in itself though. I'm particularly interested in the point that Ms. Arthur makes when she says,
Such women [who have been denied abortions], and their unwanted children, often do experience significant problems.I think that this statement accents a problem that must be tackled in our society: the reality of the
unwanted child. This is a great societal ill. But the solution to dealing withunwanted childrenis not to erase them from society. It is to recognize the inherent value in them. It is to cherish and to love them. Regardless of howwanteda person is, that person can still be cared for and loved because love and charity are not merely feelings: they are choices. We choose to love and care for people. It is possible to do it with a little sacrifice, and the right attitudes and social structures.The phrase also accents something about the question of abortion, and the decision process that surrounds abortion. I don't think that the question that parents' ask themselves when facing an unplanned pregnancy is,
Do I want this clump of totipotent cells?On some level (even subconsciously), it must always come down to,Do I want this child?It seems to me that to make the decision that one, in fact, does not want the child must be heart-breaking. I know it would be to me.Del Feb. 26, 2010, 3:43 a.m.
I do think that this article is worth engaging in itself though. I'm particularly interested in the point that Ms. Arthur makes when she says,
Such women [who have been denied abortions], and their unwanted children, often do experience significant problems.I think that this statement accents a problem that must be tackled in our society: the reality of the
unwanted child. This is a great societal ill. But the solution to dealing withunwanted childrenis not to erase them from society. It is to recognize the inherent value in them. It is to cherish and to love them. Regardless of howwanteda person is, that person can still be cared for and loved because love and charity are not merely feelings: they are choices. We choose to love and care for people. It is possible to do it with a little sacrifice, and the right attitudes and social structures.The phrase also accents something about the question of abortion, and the decision process that surrounds abortion. I don't think that the question that parents' ask themselves when facing an unplanned pregnancy is,
Do I want this clump of totipotent cells?On some level (even subconsciously), it must always come down to,Do I want this child?It seems to me that to make the decision that one, in fact, does not want the child must be heart-breaking. I know it would be to me.Bahram Farzady Feb. 26, 2010, 12:52 p.m.
The argument that studies that go against the status quo may be unfortunately true in some areas, but as far as this issue goes, there are enough Christian universities in North America (i.e., Notre Dame in the US, Holy Trinity in Canada) that that's not a real argument.
You're right that the control group she seems to want to call a study on abortion legitimate is itself a completely illegitimate and unrealistic standard. But her point still remains that triple-negative breast cancer is such a rare form of cancer that a (possible) mere 40% increase in the risk of it isn't really cause to change the course of your life.
Also, presumably we want scientific rigor, and there are women who have been denied abortions (even if only in other countries). I remember a psychology professor was telling me that his PhD thesis on schizophrenia was delayed by almost a year because he was waiting to research a specific type of schizophrenic none of whom lived in Canada so he had to wait for them to come to his research facilities from abroad.
Also, the supposed depression (which is, by the way, a real thing and I do believe the term is thrown around too often) link is easily accounted for aside from the abortion. If those women are catholic all they need is for their family and catholic friends to find out and ergo, they're depressed because even the people closest to them believe they're a horrible person for having an abortion.
Also, I don't think the women you're talking about, even in your personal experience had depression. Being bummed-out is a different thing.
Bahram Farzady Feb. 26, 2010, 12:52 p.m.
The argument that studies that go against the status quo may be unfortunately true in some areas, but as far as this issue goes, there are enough Christian universities in North America (i.e., Notre Dame in the US, Holy Trinity in Canada) that that's not a real argument.
You're right that the control group she seems to want to call a study on abortion legitimate is itself a completely illegitimate and unrealistic standard. But her point still remains that triple-negative breast cancer is such a rare form of cancer that a (possible) mere 40% increase in the risk of it isn't really cause to change the course of your life.
Also, presumably we want scientific rigor, and there are women who have been denied abortions (even if only in other countries). I remember a psychology professor was telling me that his PhD thesis on schizophrenia was delayed by almost a year because he was waiting to research a specific type of schizophrenic none of whom lived in Canada so he had to wait for them to come to his research facilities from abroad.
Also, the supposed depression (which is, by the way, a real thing and I do believe the term is thrown around too often) link is easily accounted for aside from the abortion. If those women are catholic all they need is for their family and catholic friends to find out and ergo, they're depressed because even the people closest to them believe they're a horrible person for having an abortion.
Also, I don't think the women you're talking about, even in your personal experience had depression. Being bummed-out is a different thing.
Del Feb. 26, 2010, 4:39 p.m.
Bahram,
With all due respect, you have come to a very quick an unfounded judgement on my ability to discern what depression is. My girlfriend suffers from clinical depression, and I have had several other close friends who have suffered from the same. I have had a number of friends who suffer from various other mental and emotional diseases including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. You might wonder how it is that I am acquainted with so many people who suffer in such respects. Well, I believe it has a great deal to do with the fact that I am Catholic. And in spite of your characterization (and the characterizations given by this newspaper) of my faith, the most fundamental teachings of Catholicism are of love, respect, and acceptance. We don't dole-out shame and judgement in the way people like to pretend we do.
You say that my argument regarding politics in science is not a real argument. Honestly, I don't think that you appreciate the true political climate surrounding abortion research, or that you have a true appreciation about how research is conducted. First off you claim that
Christian universitiessuch as Trinity and Notre Dame could perform the research. Well, this might be true if those universities had medical departments but to my knowledge, they don't. And even if they did have medical departments, universities aren't typical publishers: journals and conferences are. It is there that the research has to get through; not the universities.Yes, I agree that scientific rigor is desirable. But the whole point is that the current political climate makes it impossible. A few examples of what goes on in real life should make this clear.
I have a friend who is a GP who will not refer patients for abortions (she doesn't believe that they are medically necessary nor ethical). So, she posted a note on the door of her office stating as much. Basically, this was to inform people that if you are looking for an abortion, you have come to the wrong place. She was subsequently threatened by a person who passed through the office with litigation to charge her with malpractice so that she could loose her medical license. Luckily, the College of Physicians backed her and nothing eventually came of it.
But can we trust physician colleges to continue to back such cases? Recently (2008, I believe) the Ontario College of Physicians tried to strip doctors with the right to refuse
treatmentsthat they find unnecessary or unethical. You can bet that the particular targettreatmentthat they were thinking of was abortion: there are few other procedures that I can think of that many physicians would think unethical. Luckily, again, the Ontario Medical Association made enough of a noise that the new policy couldn't pass.I have another psychologist friend who has run some of the most statistically significant studies about abortion, and has found correlations to depression, substance abuse, and high risk sexual behaviour. I believe that he had to self-fund them (good luck finding funders for this research). He can't find any publishers for them. In fact, he has received personal threats because people don't like his findings or what he is studying.
And such studies become extremely difficult, if not impossible, to conduct locally. There are laws that prevent them (for example, BC doesn't allow access medical information that pertains to abortion, so accurate statistics are impossible).
On the national level, we have people like Machael Ignatieff and our own Dr. Kieth Martin trying to bully the government into including abortion into foreign aid plans for
maternal health. Never mind that this is a contradiction in terms (if you don't believe the fetus to be a child, you can't believe the pregnant woman to be a mother), but suchaidis likely totally unwanted by the recipient groups.But, on the international level lobbyists are constantly trying to force abortion onto nations that don't need or want it. International NGOs (such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation) are trying to push the UN to declare a universal right to access to abortion. They, too, cite
maternal healthand a wanteddecrease in maternal deathsto be the reasons. But they totally ignore reports of countries such as Chile who boasts the lowest maternal mortality rate in South America in spite of the fact that its constitution protects the rights of the unborn.Note, that I don't discredit the real experience of abortion doctors who have been attacked or killed. Such attacks are abhorrent and are to be reviled, and their perpetrators have to be prosecuted. But, there are numerous other examples that indicate how impossible it is to conduct proper research about abortion in today's political climate. Researchers and doctors are scared, don't have funding, and can't find publishers.
Del Feb. 26, 2010, 4:39 p.m.
Bahram,
With all due respect, you have come to a very quick an unfounded judgement on my ability to discern what depression is. My girlfriend suffers from clinical depression, and I have had several other close friends who have suffered from the same. I have had a number of friends who suffer from various other mental and emotional diseases including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. You might wonder how it is that I am acquainted with so many people who suffer in such respects. Well, I believe it has a great deal to do with the fact that I am Catholic. And in spite of your characterization (and the characterizations given by this newspaper) of my faith, the most fundamental teachings of Catholicism are of love, respect, and acceptance. We don't dole-out shame and judgement in the way people like to pretend we do.
You say that my argument regarding politics in science is not a real argument. Honestly, I don't think that you appreciate the true political climate surrounding abortion research, or that you have a true appreciation about how research is conducted. First off you claim that
Christian universitiessuch as Trinity and Notre Dame could perform the research. Well, this might be true if those universities had medical departments but to my knowledge, they don't. And even if they did have medical departments, universities aren't typical publishers: journals and conferences are. It is there that the research has to get through; not the universities.Yes, I agree that scientific rigor is desirable. But the whole point is that the current political climate makes it impossible. A few examples of what goes on in real life should make this clear.
I have a friend who is a GP who will not refer patients for abortions (she doesn't believe that they are medically necessary nor ethical). So, she posted a note on the door of her office stating as much. Basically, this was to inform people that if you are looking for an abortion, you have come to the wrong place. She was subsequently threatened by a person who passed through the office with litigation to charge her with malpractice so that she could loose her medical license. Luckily, the College of Physicians backed her and nothing eventually came of it.
But can we trust physician colleges to continue to back such cases? Recently (2008, I believe) the Ontario College of Physicians tried to strip doctors with the right to refuse
treatmentsthat they find unnecessary or unethical. You can bet that the particular targettreatmentthat they were thinking of was abortion: there are few other procedures that I can think of that many physicians would think unethical. Luckily, again, the Ontario Medical Association made enough of a noise that the new policy couldn't pass.I have another psychologist friend who has run some of the most statistically significant studies about abortion, and has found correlations to depression, substance abuse, and high risk sexual behaviour. I believe that he had to self-fund them (good luck finding funders for this research). He can't find any publishers for them. In fact, he has received personal threats because people don't like his findings or what he is studying.
And such studies become extremely difficult, if not impossible, to conduct locally. There are laws that prevent them (for example, BC doesn't allow access medical information that pertains to abortion, so accurate statistics are impossible).
On the national level, we have people like Machael Ignatieff and our own Dr. Kieth Martin trying to bully the government into including abortion into foreign aid plans for
maternal health. Never mind that this is a contradiction in terms (if you don't believe the fetus to be a child, you can't believe the pregnant woman to be a mother), but suchaidis likely totally unwanted by the recipient groups.But, on the international level lobbyists are constantly trying to force abortion onto nations that don't need or want it. International NGOs (such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation) are trying to push the UN to declare a universal right to access to abortion. They, too, cite
maternal healthand a wanteddecrease in maternal deathsto be the reasons. But they totally ignore reports of countries such as Chile who boasts the lowest maternal mortality rate in South America in spite of the fact that its constitution protects the rights of the unborn.Note, that I don't discredit the real experience of abortion doctors who have been attacked or killed. Such attacks are abhorrent and are to be reviled, and their perpetrators have to be prosecuted. But, there are numerous other examples that indicate how impossible it is to conduct proper research about abortion in today's political climate. Researchers and doctors are scared, don't have funding, and can't find publishers.
Bahram Farzady Feb. 26, 2010, 9:17 p.m.
I have had a number of friends who suffer from various other mental and emotional diseases including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. You might wonder how it is that I am acquainted with so many people who suffer in such respects. Well, I believe it has a great deal to do with the fact that I am Catholic.Your words, not mine.
I have another psychologist friend who has run some of the most statistically significant studies about abortion, and has found correlations to depression, substance abuse, and high risk sexual behaviour.Arthur grants that there is correlation.
I don't think this political climate pertains in the USA. Even among scientists religion is still popular. A lot of this research is just pointless because it has been done by secular scientists and the results are conclusive.
No one will fund research into the demon in the ground that planted all those fossils either.
Bahram Farzady Feb. 26, 2010, 9:17 p.m.
I have had a number of friends who suffer from various other mental and emotional diseases including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. You might wonder how it is that I am acquainted with so many people who suffer in such respects. Well, I believe it has a great deal to do with the fact that I am Catholic.Your words, not mine.
I have another psychologist friend who has run some of the most statistically significant studies about abortion, and has found correlations to depression, substance abuse, and high risk sexual behaviour.Arthur grants that there is correlation.
I don't think this political climate pertains in the USA. Even among scientists religion is still popular. A lot of this research is just pointless because it has been done by secular scientists and the results are conclusive.
No one will fund research into the demon in the ground that planted all those fossils either.
Bahram Farzady Feb. 26, 2010, 9:21 p.m.
I have had a number of friends who suffer from various other mental and emotional diseases including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. You might wonder how it is that I am acquainted with so many people who suffer in such respects. Well, I believe it has a great deal to do with the fact that I am Catholic.What are you saying here? Sick and dieing people gravitate to the religion of the hangman? No joke.
Bahram Farzady Feb. 26, 2010, 9:21 p.m.
I have had a number of friends who suffer from various other mental and emotional diseases including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. You might wonder how it is that I am acquainted with so many people who suffer in such respects. Well, I believe it has a great deal to do with the fact that I am Catholic.What are you saying here? Sick and dieing people gravitate to the religion of the hangman? No joke.
Bahram Farzady Feb. 27, 2010, 2:12 a.m.
Arthur is such a bad writer though. I feel like I'm reading what a computer had to say about the issue.
There is a certain thing called passion. It can be made manifest in - among other things - writing.
Bahram Farzady Feb. 27, 2010, 2:12 a.m.
Arthur is such a bad writer though. I feel like I'm reading what a computer had to say about the issue.
There is a certain thing called passion. It can be made manifest in - among other things - writing.
LOL Feb. 27, 2010, 2:59 a.m.
Bahram Farzady calling Joyce Arthur a
bad writer- that's hillarious! I really did laugh out loud when I read that.I disagree completely with Joyce, but she's clearly a good, clear writer, unlike some egomaniacal comment board warriors.
LOL Feb. 27, 2010, 2:59 a.m.
Bahram Farzady calling Joyce Arthur a
bad writer- that's hillarious! I really did laugh out loud when I read that.I disagree completely with Joyce, but she's clearly a good, clear writer, unlike some egomaniacal comment board warriors.
Del Feb. 27, 2010, 4:31 a.m.
Bahram,
Your descent into sarcastic insults indicates to me that there is really no place for our conversation to go from here. I thank you, though, for the discussion that we did have.
Del Feb. 27, 2010, 4:31 a.m.
Bahram,
Your descent into sarcastic insults indicates to me that there is really no place for our conversation to go from here. I thank you, though, for the discussion that we did have.
Bahram Farzady Feb. 27, 2010, 9:11 p.m.
Clarity being one of many characteristics of good writing.
Not sarcasm Dell. Someone who advocates their religion because sick people like it is someone advocating a religion for sick people. I'm not sick.
This is a serious criticism of Christianity, and not merely sarcasm.
Bahram Farzady Feb. 27, 2010, 9:11 p.m.
Clarity being one of many characteristics of good writing.
Not sarcasm Dell. Someone who advocates their religion because sick people like it is someone advocating a religion for sick people. I'm not sick.
This is a serious criticism of Christianity, and not merely sarcasm.
Del Feb. 28, 2010, 1:56 a.m.
Well, Bahram, honestly, I can read the sarcasm, but I can't possibly see the criticism. Of course my religion is a religion for the sick! It is also a religion for the healthy, the weak, the strong, the simple, the intelligent, the artist, the scientist, the young, the old. What I said is that it is a religion of love and acceptance. That means love for everyone. If you pay attention, you'll see that everyone who lives has something to offer to the world, and something to offer to you personally. Everyone is valuable and worthy of love. If you would like to criticize that, you can go ahead. It won't affect me, though. I will continue to stick to the creed that accepts all people because of their inherent worth, rather than any other arbitrary criteria.
But, we have gotten far off topic by now. I don't think that there is really anything more to be said.
Del Feb. 28, 2010, 1:56 a.m.
Well, Bahram, honestly, I can read the sarcasm, but I can't possibly see the criticism. Of course my religion is a religion for the sick! It is also a religion for the healthy, the weak, the strong, the simple, the intelligent, the artist, the scientist, the young, the old. What I said is that it is a religion of love and acceptance. That means love for everyone. If you pay attention, you'll see that everyone who lives has something to offer to the world, and something to offer to you personally. Everyone is valuable and worthy of love. If you would like to criticize that, you can go ahead. It won't affect me, though. I will continue to stick to the creed that accepts all people because of their inherent worth, rather than any other arbitrary criteria.
But, we have gotten far off topic by now. I don't think that there is really anything more to be said.
Launny Faulkner Feb. 28, 2010, 2:22 p.m.
Here is the original article that Joyce is referring to--my article. Unfortunately the Martlet eddited it until it sounded much less intelligent and important (I too explained the use of statistical controls for comorbidities and the use of control groups), but here it is with the references included. Read them for youself! Joyce is right about many studies, but these are from 2009 done by the very same institute she is claiming denies an abortion-breast cancer link. I too am alert to biases and flaws when I research, and you won't find any in these.
Women’s Health, Abortion, and Informed Consent: A Medical Perspective
• A study done in 2009 by the U.S. National Cancer Institute has concluded that abortion raises the risk of triple-negative breast cancer (the most aggressive and deadly) by 40%.1 The Institute has long denied this link, and currently refuses to comment on the new evidence. • A 2009 meta-analysis of 37 studies found that after one induced termination of pregnancy, there is a 35% increase in the risk of low birth weight for subsequent children, and a 36% increase in the risk of pre-term birth.2 Both are associated with significant health complications for the baby (including mental disabilities), as well as emotional, psychological, and financial stress for the parents. • With confounding variables removed and the use of statistical controls, psychiatric researchers found that abortion increased the risk of panic disorder, post traumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, major depression, and substance abuse disorders by 4.3 – 16.6% (p <0.001).3 • In the British Journal of Psychiatry, estimates of attributable risk indicated that exposure to abortion accounted for 1.5% to 5.5% of the overall rate of mental disorders. There were no consistent associations between other pregnancy outcomes and mental health.4
Launny Faulkner Feb. 28, 2010, 2:22 p.m.
Here is the original article that Joyce is referring to--my article. Unfortunately the Martlet eddited it until it sounded much less intelligent and important (I too explained the use of statistical controls for comorbidities and the use of control groups), but here it is with the references included. Read them for youself! Joyce is right about many studies, but these are from 2009 done by the very same institute she is claiming denies an abortion-breast cancer link. I too am alert to biases and flaws when I research, and you won't find any in these.
Women’s Health, Abortion, and Informed Consent: A Medical Perspective
• A study done in 2009 by the U.S. National Cancer Institute has concluded that abortion raises the risk of triple-negative breast cancer (the most aggressive and deadly) by 40%.1 The Institute has long denied this link, and currently refuses to comment on the new evidence. • A 2009 meta-analysis of 37 studies found that after one induced termination of pregnancy, there is a 35% increase in the risk of low birth weight for subsequent children, and a 36% increase in the risk of pre-term birth.2 Both are associated with significant health complications for the baby (including mental disabilities), as well as emotional, psychological, and financial stress for the parents. • With confounding variables removed and the use of statistical controls, psychiatric researchers found that abortion increased the risk of panic disorder, post traumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, major depression, and substance abuse disorders by 4.3 – 16.6% (p <0.001).3 • In the British Journal of Psychiatry, estimates of attributable risk indicated that exposure to abortion accounted for 1.5% to 5.5% of the overall rate of mental disorders. There were no consistent associations between other pregnancy outcomes and mental health.4
Bahram Farzady Feb. 28, 2010, 7:10 p.m.
Del, it's not a religion for everyone. It makes a virtue out of everything which is against a healthy human life. Shyness, pity, sorrow, weakness, shame, guilt, etc...
`Hitherto one has always attacked Christianity not merely in a modest way but in the wrong way. As long as one has not felt Christian morality to be a capital crime against life its defenders have had it all their own way... Is Christian morality worth anything, or is it a shame and disgrace despite its arts of seduction?
One should never forgive Christianity for having destroyed such men as Pascal. One should never cease from combating just this in Christianity: its will to break precisely the strongest and the noblest souls. One should never rest as long as this one thing has not been utterly and completely destroyed: the ideal of man invented by Christianity, its demands upon men, its Yes and its No with regard to men. The whole absurd residue of the Christian fable, conceptual cobweb-spinning and theology does not concern us; it could be a thousand times more absurd and we would not lift a finger against it. But we do combat the ideal that, with its morbid beauty and feminine seductiveness, with its furtive slanderous eloquence appeals to all the cowardices and vanities of the wearied souls - and the strongest have their weary hours - as if all that might, in such states, seem most useful and desirable - trust, guilelessness, modesty, patience, love of one's fellows, resignation, submission to God, a sort of unharnessing and abdication of one's whole ego...`
--- Nietzsche
I'll protect your right to say what you want Del, but I won't for a second give credit to your life-denying, twisted and morbid obsession with a tortured and crucified jew over 2000 years ago.
Bahram Farzady Feb. 28, 2010, 7:10 p.m.
Del, it's not a religion for everyone. It makes a virtue out of everything which is against a healthy human life. Shyness, pity, sorrow, weakness, shame, guilt, etc...
`Hitherto one has always attacked Christianity not merely in a modest way but in the wrong way. As long as one has not felt Christian morality to be a capital crime against life its defenders have had it all their own way... Is Christian morality worth anything, or is it a shame and disgrace despite its arts of seduction?
One should never forgive Christianity for having destroyed such men as Pascal. One should never cease from combating just this in Christianity: its will to break precisely the strongest and the noblest souls. One should never rest as long as this one thing has not been utterly and completely destroyed: the ideal of man invented by Christianity, its demands upon men, its Yes and its No with regard to men. The whole absurd residue of the Christian fable, conceptual cobweb-spinning and theology does not concern us; it could be a thousand times more absurd and we would not lift a finger against it. But we do combat the ideal that, with its morbid beauty and feminine seductiveness, with its furtive slanderous eloquence appeals to all the cowardices and vanities of the wearied souls - and the strongest have their weary hours - as if all that might, in such states, seem most useful and desirable - trust, guilelessness, modesty, patience, love of one's fellows, resignation, submission to God, a sort of unharnessing and abdication of one's whole ego...`
--- Nietzsche
I'll protect your right to say what you want Del, but I won't for a second give credit to your life-denying, twisted and morbid obsession with a tortured and crucified jew over 2000 years ago.
Vaughn Feb. 28, 2010, 11:56 p.m.
Bahram Farzady you will protect the right for a man to say what he wants, but if only you could offer that same latitude to an unborn child.
Vaughn Feb. 28, 2010, 11:56 p.m.
Bahram Farzady you will protect the right for a man to say what he wants, but if only you could offer that same latitude to an unborn child.
Bahram Farzady March 1, 2010, 1:37 a.m.
Unborn children can say whatever comes to their yet in-existent minds.
I don't protect the right to life of tadpoles or other organisms either. Even Aquinas thought that children were 'en-souled' well after birth.
Bahram Farzady March 1, 2010, 1:37 a.m.
Unborn children can say whatever comes to their yet in-existent minds.
I don't protect the right to life of tadpoles or other organisms either. Even Aquinas thought that children were 'en-souled' well after birth.
Derek Geake March 2, 2010, 3:02 a.m.
Bahram, could you please cite your reference for Aquinas' view regarding ensoulment, and defend your exegesis. Just for clarity so that Aquinas is not confused as official Catholic Teaching.
Thank you.
Derek Geake March 2, 2010, 3:02 a.m.
Bahram, could you please cite your reference for Aquinas' view regarding ensoulment, and defend your exegesis. Just for clarity so that Aquinas is not confused as official Catholic Teaching.
Thank you.
Bahram Farzady March 2, 2010, 2 p.m.
Oops, I meant
well after conception.Here's the source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensoulment
Official Catholic Teaching is inherently confusing and stupid.
Conceptual cobweb spinning.Don't get lost in them though.Bahram Farzady March 2, 2010, 2 p.m.
Oops, I meant
well after conception.Here's the source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensoulment
Official Catholic Teaching is inherently confusing and stupid.
Conceptual cobweb spinning.Don't get lost in them though.