GUEST OPINION: 10.30.13

By on October 29, 2013

JACKSON HOLE, WYO –

Concern for women, girls

In light of Dr. Loren Nelson’s recent disagreement with my ads, did you know that there are studies dating back to 1957, which have implicated abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer? The New England Journal of Medicine has listed abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which sets the standards of care for abortion practitioners in the United Kingdom, has validated the evidence for the ABC link, acknowledging an overall 30 percent increased risk of breast cancer with abortion.

Dr. Lynn Rosenberg, a scientist testifying under oath for a group of abortionists, was asked: “So in other words, a woman who finds herself pregnant at age 15 will have a higher breast cancer risk if she chooses to abort that pregnancy than if she carries the pregnancy to term, correct?” She answered: “Probably, yes.”

Please check out these Web sites and educate yourself on the subject. Don’t take my word for it, or Dr. Nelson’s. The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is abortionbreastcancer.com. The Breast Cancer Prevention Institute is BCPinstitute.org. Please note that an increased risk does not occur after a first-trimester miscarriage.

One of the reasons I place Right to Life ads is that I care about the women and girls who won’t otherwise be informed of this risk before making an abortion decision. Some women might decide against abortion because of this risk. But even if they decide to go ahead, they can be on higher alert to the possibility of future breast cancer.

Our ads also encourage respect for life from the moment of fertilization, considering every life – born and preborn – to be precious. We educate using facts about the baby’s humanity and amazing development in the womb. Do you realize a baby’s heart starts beating regularly between Day 18 and Day 25 after fertilization? That brain waves have been measurable since Day 43? That by 10 weeks, all major organs are functioning, fingerprints and perfectly formed toes are present, and the baby might be sucking his or her thumb? By making such information available, we show our respect for women and try to encourage any woman in a crisis pregnancy to see her son or daughter as a person so she will not choose death for her baby, but life, with the option of adoption.

Most importantly, though, is that I want people to know that every conception is an act of God, and every person is created in the image of God, even from the moment of fertilization. All of us need to know the love of God that is in Jesus Christ, and the salvation He provides to all who will embrace Him for forgiveness of sins and the power to turn from them. This results in the peace with God needed by everyone, not just Dr. Nelson and me.

– Elaine Kuhr


About planetjh

4 Comments

  1. Joe

    November 2, 2013 at 8:41 am

    If you don’t like abortions don’t get one. Freedom means some folks will disagree on some issues but they are free to do as they please. I personally don’t care what you do with your life—I don’t want my (or others) life controlled by your religious views.

    • Eileen

      November 3, 2013 at 2:20 pm

      Well, we’ve all certainly heard those canned arguments before. However, in the age of Obama and religious discrimination, the reverse situation is true. Most of us deeply resent being controlled by militant secularists in the ruling class who impose their views on the rest of the country.

      • Eileen

        November 3, 2013 at 2:25 pm

        And I would add that freedom means having the right to do what one ought to do. It does not mean you have the right to do as you please without the least bit of concern for the people you harm. That’s a perfect storm for anarchy. Totalitarian governments rise up in nations whose citizens are incapable of self-restraint (Hello, NSA and total state surveillance!). Our founding fathers often said a democratic republic can only exist in a nation that is both moral and religious.

  2. Asprin Legs

    November 2, 2013 at 4:54 pm

    Elaine Kuhr won’t tell you the whole story. She’s trying the old political trick of not sharing with you all of the data. Selective sharing. Wikipedia has a nice introductory overview of the data used by both sides of the debate.

    Elaine Kuhr says “In light of Dr. Loren Nelson’s recent disagreement with my ads, did you know that there are studies dating back to 1957, which have implicated abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer?”

    But the 1957 study was far from conclusive.

    “The first study involving statistics on abortion and breast cancer was a broad study in 1957,[5] which examined common cancers in Japan. The researchers were cautious about drawing any conclusions.”

    Of course, one study means almost nothing in the scientific world. Most studies show no statistically significant link.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion%E2%80%93breast_cancer_hypothesis

    ” the NCI convened a 2003 workshop bringing together over 100 experts on the issue. This workshop concluded that while some studies reported a statistical correlation between breast cancer and abortion,[14][15][16] the strongest scientific evidence[17] from large prospective cohort studies[18][19] demonstrates that abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk,[20] and the positive findings were considered to be due to response bias.[21]”

    “I don’t want my (or others) life controlled by your religious views.”

    Don’t get prego & you won’t need an abortion. The government already controls your life. The Pro-Lifers have a right to express their opinion and help pass legislation just as you do.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

38,270 Spambots Blocked by Simple Comments

HTML tags are not allowed.