Oooo, a response based on science! How droll.

Let’s see:

  1. You’ve quoted three studies there. The first has ~literally~ nothing to do with your point whatsoever, being a study on cervical cancer and the causative pathway of HPV. The second is precisely what I talked about in the article — an observational study that finds an increased risk of breast cancer when you compare women who’ve had an abortion with women who’ve continued a pregnancy, due to the protective factor of pregnancy hormones on breast cancer. The third, in an absolutely hilarious twist, is a 20-year-old study that provides evidence against your point, in that they found no increased risk of breast cancer in women who had had an abortion.
  2. You are conflating two different experiences. Losing a wanted child is an obviously traumatic experience and I clearly outlined in my article that this was not my focus. This entire point is a dishonest strawman, a waste of words designed to mislead.
  3. This is boringly ignorant of medical fact. Prior to the modern age, ~50% of women died in childbirth. In many developing countries, it is the leading cause of death for women. You are simply wrong.

So, all in all, a waste of words. An ideological word salad that draws on pseudoscientific posing to make a science-y sounding argument with no basis whatsoever in fact. It appears that you have not even read the studies you cite, particularly when one provides evidence against your argument.

Odd, that. Almost as if the facts were starkly counter to your own beliefs.

Epidemiologist. Writer. Podcaster. Twitter FB Email