|
Cancer
as a Case Against Abortion
Lost
in the politics of women’s health and kept away from public debate, there has
been medical evidence that abortion is a contributory factor in the increased
incidences of breast cancer. The first evidence was published in the April 1957
English edition of the Japanese Journal of Cancer Research. The study, led by
Patrick Carroll, looked at breast cancer rates in Britain, Finland, Sweden and
the Czech Republic. He found that “Breast cancer incidence has risen in
parallel with rising abortion rates. There is no doubt there is a causal
relationship” (BBC, p.2). Many studies have failed to ascertain the
relationship between abortion and cancer and have failed to distinguish between
miscarriages and induced abortions, argues Professor Brind.
Since
mammalians share similar reproductive systems, the study used rats and examined
the terminal end buds (TEB) within the mammary glands where cancer usually
occurs. These cells develop for lactation and remain undifferentiated until the
end of the pregnancy. Full-term pregnancy resulted in the maturity of TEB’s.
Prevention of the maturity of these cells led to cancerous cells later.
Researchers
theorize that this is because during puberty and pregnancy there is excess
estrogen available, causing the mammary glands increase in size. The surge of
estrogen then leads to the growth of undifferentiated cells in the mammary
glands as the body prepares to produce milk The mechanisms that support estrogen
levels are the hormones progesterone, which helps balance estrogen - especially
after pregnancy; and melatonin which reduces excess estrogen. All normal mammary
glands have estrogen receptors and in some cases cancer cells also have these
receptors feeding the growth of the tumor (Reidenbach, p.1).
In
addition, researchers found that carrying a baby to full term prevented this
estrogen surge from creating cancerous cells. This was because in the last weeks
of pregnancy these receptors become terminally differentiated in a mechanism
still not fully understood. Once differentiated, these cells are less vulnerable
to carcinogens (Foster, p.1) In miscarriages, as well, the level of estradiol,
or ovarian estrogen, is much lower.
On
the other hand, in induced abortions, the levels of estradiol is much higher in
the understanding that the body is sustaining a viable pregnancy. Miscarriages
usually occur in the first trimester and induced abortions usually occur in the
second and third trimesters. In one study, doctors were able to predict 90% of
miscarriages based on estradiol levels alone (Brind, #1 .2).
The
World Health Organization (WHO), however, does not support the association
between abortion and breast cancer, focusing on studies heavily dependent on
historical data (WHO, p.1). This is probably out of the need to advance
artificial means of population control. In fact, the WHO, Oxford Family Planning
Center in Britain reacted strongly to the 1971 study by Malcolm Pike et al.,
published in the British Journal of Cancer. Pike’s research found a two to
four-fold increase in the risk of breast cancer with induced abortions,
spontaneous abortions and oral contraceptives. To challenge this, the Oxford
Center produced a very large study in Sweden that showed no relationship between
them. However, they could not provide the answer as to how many women in this
study had induced abortions (Brind, p.2).
The
most controversial study pro-abortionists use is the large-scale epidemiological
study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1997. Using Danish
registries, the conclusion was that “induced abortions have no overall effect
on the risk of breast cancer.” However, this was a retrospective study (NCI,
p.1) and relied heavily on computerized records, which dated back to 1973. The
records of abortions going back to 1939, when abortion became legal, were
available but not used. There were also 63,401 women on record who had had
abortions but were classified as not having had abortions (Brind, #1p.4).
While
the debate continues, breast cancer, common in developed countries, is now
increasing in developing countries (WHO, p.1). The risk of breast cancer among
the general population is now close to 12%. For those who have never had
children, it is closer to 20% and for those who have had no children and at
least one abortion it is closer to 50% (Abortionfacts.com, p.2). In the U.S.,
there are 240,000 new breast cancer patients annually - with a small percentage
of them being men. The cause in men is unknown and 70% of female cases have no
identifiable risk factors. By the time breast cancer is detected by a mammogram,
the cancer would have been six to eight years old (WINABC, p.1, 2).
Taking
the issue to court in Australia, a woman reached a settlement with an
abortionist she sued for not telling her about medical evidence that had linked
abortion to breast cancer. Charles Francis, who represented this woman, had also
represented others on the basis of the psychological consequences of abortion.
He said, “I had to go into all the evidence and the expert medical views for
the purpose of presenting the case. It seemed to me, looking at it as a lawyer
looking at evidence, the evidence was fairly strong - certainly strong enough,
we thought, for [us to have] a good chance at winning.”
President
of U.S.-based Coalition on Abortion-Breast Cancer, Karen Malec, further
commented “The abortion industry and its medical experts know that it will be
far more challenging for them to lie to women about the abortion - breast cancer
link when they are called upon to testify under oath” (Goodenough, p.1, 2).
Dr. Brind emphasizes the health risks when he concludes, “Even if the baby is
going to be a goner, for the sake of the mother, it is far better to carry the
baby to term.”
It
is precisely for the health of the woman and the respect for life that Islam
strongly advises against abortion and at the same time recognizes the possible
maternal health risks involved for certain women mothers if they continue with
the pregnancy. “Women’s health is the issue, not abortion.” Dr. Brind
concluded, “What gives anybody the right to use women or any patients of any
medical procedure as pawns in a political battle, whether it be to preserve the
reputation of ‘safe abortion or anything else” (Foster p.5).
Sources:
|
