Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
WHILE DEBATES AROUND the Eighth referendum are being heard out on television and radio in these final weeks before the vote, claims around the issue of abortion are also spreading quickly through social media platforms.
One prominent paid-for advertisement from a group calling itself Good Counsel Network Ireland has been surfacing on Irish Facebook user news feeds.
We won’t link to this ad here because it uses a video which some readers might find disturbing (it features the murderous doll character ‘Chucky’ from the horror movie series Child’s Play). The status on the video post, in essence, claims that having an abortion leaves a woman at increased risk of developing breast cancer.
This claim – that abortion can cause breast cancer – also surfaced in Ireland in 2016 when an undercover Times (Ireland edition) reporter was told by a crisis pregnancy advice centre in Dublin that “there are more breast cancers found in groups of women who’ve had abortions than any other group”.
As the Facebook ad from the Good Counsel Network Ireland is currently gaining traction, we’ll examine the information they are distributing.
The claim
The text of the paid-for post on Facebook goes as follows:
WOMEN ARE ABUSED BY ABORTION PROFITEERS LYING TO THEM AND DENYING THE FACTS, FOR EXAMPLE THAT ABORTION IS LINKED TO BREAST CANCER SINCE 1958! ( 77% ABORTED RATS GOT CANCER V. 0% OF THOSE GIVING BIRTH: RUSSO, 1980) COVERED UP BY A CORRUPT NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MURDER AND THE NCI WHICH BEFORE 2003 COVER-UP ADMITTED THE LINK….NO MEDIA WILL TELL WOMEN THE FACTS….
The sources
The claim here “that abortion is linked to breast cancer” says that such a link has been in evidence since 1958. The post does not cite a source for this claim and attempts to contact Good Counsel Network Ireland to expand on this have been unsuccessful.
It is likely that this is a reference to the earliest-known study of potential links between abortion (in this case both induced and spontaneous abortion), which was carried out as part of wide-ranging research into common cancers in Tohoku, Japan.
Scientists here noted that there was a higher rate of breast cancer recorded among women who also said they had experienced an abortion but the researchers said that they believed they couldn’t draw any conclusions from this survey because of “methodological weaknesses” in their study.
Although their cautionary comments were usually ignored by later researchers when citing their report, the Tohoku team were explicit about their concern that the women in the control group, who were not facing a life-threatening disease, were less likely to report a past history of induced abortion, thus making it impossible to draw any conclusions about a cancer link. In later years, this phenomenon would be referred to as “recall bias”.
- Cambridge Medical History Journal (UK)
Let’s turn then to the only example cited by Good Counsel Network Ireland (GCNI) of a scientific study which it says backs up its claim. This refers to a 1980 research paper published by J Russo and IH Russo in Philadelphia, USA. They had studied the incidence of malignant tumours and benign lesions in the mammary glands of rats.
In the study, they used rats who had had a full pregnancy and lactated, rats who had had a pregnancy but not lactated, rats whose pregnancy was terminated early and virgin rats as control groups for each of those three.
These researchers discovered that there was a 77% higher increase of carcinomas in those rats who had had their pregnancy terminated early – this is presumably the figure cited in the GCNI ad. A similar percentage of the virgin rats however – who never experienced pregnancy – also developed carcinomas.
The Russos concluded – and reconfirmed in later studies – that in fact pregnancy and lactation was the protective factor against breast cancer, rather than abortion being a factor in causing breast cancer. Also, breast cancer does not naturally occur in rats – in the Russos’ study, all of the test rats were injected with a toxin in order to allow tumours the chance to develop.
What is the research since the 1980 study?
The possibility of a correlation between breast cancer and abortion has been the subject of extensive study across scores of academic and medical institutes.
In 2003, the National Cancer Institute in the US assembled over 100 experts in the area to workshop all the available studies at the time. That convention concluded that the strongest scientific evidence concluded that “having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer”.
In January of this year, a meta-analysis by Chinese researchers of 25 studies from across the world into the issue found “IA (induced abortion) was not significantly associated with an increased risk of breast cancer”. You can read the full article at the Medicine journal here.
A representative from the World Health Organisation’s department of reproductive health and research, Dr Ronald Johnson, was questioned last year by the Oireachtas Committee on the Eighth Amendment on WHO guidelines on the risk of breast cancer to women who had had an abortion.
Dr Johnson told the Oireachtas hearing that abortion poses ”no known risks for breast cancer, future reproduction or mental health”.
Conclusion
The best-available epidemiological evidence consistently refutes the claim that there is an increased risk of breast cancer specific to women who have had an abortion.
The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists states that ”there is no established link between induced abortion or miscarriage and development of breast cancer.” The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guidelines state categorically: ”Women should be informed that induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.”
We rate the claim that women are being “den(ied) the facts” and “that abortion is linked to breast cancer” as FALSE.
TheJournal.ie’s FactCheck is a signatory to the International Fact-Checking Network’s Code of Principles. You can read it here. For information on how FactCheck works, what the verdicts mean, and how you can take part, check out our Reader’s Guide here. You can read about the team of editors and reporters who work on the factchecks here.
The “Pro-Life” side like to play fast and loose with the truth.
The fact check shows, as expected, that the claim is false.
@Michael Lang: it is factually correct. What evidence or paper would you offer to the contrary if you are saying that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer?
@David Howth: the onus of scientist/meducal proof is on those making the assertion of the causal link.
So, you provide me with peer reviewed proof of your unsustainable assertion.
@Michael Lang: the article contains references to several peer reviewed articles, did you even read it?!
Hey guys, I think you’re actually on the same page..
@Incognito: shhh. It’s hilarious
@David Howth: there is no link between abortion and breast cancer. There is no proof and there is no sustainable hypothesis for such a causal link.
@Incognito: it would appear so. It may be that my comment at the top of the thread was misread.
@Michael Lang: David got your stumps with that spinner mick. Are you going to give him his answer?
@Patrick Mallon: the articles do not sustain the far fetched hypothesis that abortion causes breast cancer in human females. You need to read them. No aetiology or theory of causation is asserted.
Consequently, the unsupported assertion of the Pro-Life side that abortion causes breast cancer in human females is false and untrue.
@David Howth: isn’t that a bit like saying the Flying Spaghetti Monster is factually correct, and what evidence or paper would you offer to prove to the contrary?
@Michael Lang: ‘The fact check shows….’
Calm down Michael, this is a journal check and it’s starting to look more like Pravda by the day.
@Michael Lang:
Welcome to the Michael Lang journal.
Yesterday you posted so many comments that some were even in response to yourself.
On this, nearly half of the 100+ posts are from you, even confusing pro-choicers with pro-lifers.
Give it a break. Go outside. Enjoy the nice weather. Have a drink.
@Hapax: all on the topic of lies by the pro-life side, being the topic of the article which my comments addressed. The response of the pro-life side is to tell more lies.
@Michael Lang: The three of you need to take a break .
@Hapax: There is what my old dad would call ‘ a want’ evident in the intensity of this identity’s activity.
@Michael Lang:
The possibilty that abortion could cause cancer is news to me. I don’t believe any pro-life group supports this claim, but correct me if I’m wrong. This factcheck therefore seems very contrived as “lies from the the pro-lifers”.
If you are truly honest you can see this article for what it is and what it is trying to do. The “fact” that is being “checked” here is not on any pro-life poster or leaflet.
Aside from that, the one fact I know is with regard to pregnancy protecting against breast cancer. Which has nothing to do with the referendum.
@Hapax: I have found the claims in a number of different places. It’s a recurring meme on the pro-life side.
@Michael Lang: just the same as their bogus clinics were exposed.
Had ‘love both’ at my door. Every single stat and ‘fact’ the told me was demonstrably false. I corrected them, and on one particular claim they accepted my figure.
The same two canvassers knocked at my mothers door 15 minutes later and gave the same incorrect figure i.e. they are knowingly trying to mislead people with false information.
@The Risen: and then you woke up
@The Risen: that conduct of pro-life fits within the definition of lies, intentional falsehoods, and deceitful behaviour with intention to mislead.
@The Risen: Nice fairy tale.
I don’t lie. Thats how I’ve never been caught out on this site in all the years I’m posting here.
Didn’t stop one of your lot repeatedly calling me a liar the other day though.
@The Risen:
I’m amazed you gave them any airtime at all. I’ll be running them immediately.
Just in case anyone is wondering, they tried the ’90% of down syndrome babies are aborted in the UK’ line. I corrected them that the real figure is around 57% and explained why. They accepted the correction……and then later knocked on my Mothers door and told here the exact same 90% figure.
Morally bankrupt.
@Tweed Cap: I always engage canvassers. It’s good fun grinding their arguments down to a fine paste, even though you know you won’t chang their minds.
It’s not the winning, it’s the taking apart that counts.
@The Risen: ‘it’s the taking apart’ -nice one!
@The Risen: of all the doors for them to knock on haha
@The Risen: that didn’t really happen now, your making this up as you go along, you were doing grand until you mentioned the granny. Bless
@Tweed Cap: he’s spoofing, it didn’t happen. It could be a medication problem.
@Patrick Mallon: were you one of the unfortunate “pro-life” canvassers?
@Patrick Mallon: the risens pretty much the straightest shooter on here. i can see why you pro lifers have such a problem with him.
@ micheal – yeah, i’d say he probably was lol!
@Patrick Mallon: so you think they’ll apologise for lying and take this nonsense of their websites? We know that won’t happen. It’s what The Rosen said happened to him but on a larger scale. Also, I have no reason not to believe him. None of the fact checks that have proven pro-life groups “facts” less than true has lead to an explanation or a retraction. That is morally bankrupt. Telling people they’ll get cancer if they miscarry or have an abortion is disgusting
@Dave O Keeffe: *Risen (apologies)
@Michael Lang: fake news! Pro birth not pro life! They dont give a feck about the child once it’s born!
@Zap Brannigan: ‘pro forced birth’
“Pro-Life” truth is an example of an oxymoron.
@Michael Lang: Jesus man can you not write everything in one post?
@Michael Lang: You left out the word dogma Tony, surely you could have fashioned the sentence to somehow get it in.
@Nick Drake: thanks for the reminder. Dogma and truth are mutually exclusive.
@Peter Denham: I am not Jesus.
@Peter Denham: remind me to get back to you later.
Have you any comment on the topic of the article?
@Michael Lang: Oh no, tell me that’s not true. You cant deny it now. I was thinking of converting and becoming a Langer.
@Patrick J. O’Rourke: many are called; few are chosen.
@Nick Drake: Very good Nick. Since tony [fiona] moved onto to being Michael I actually completely ignore his comments but I took the time or read yours. There are so many with multiple accounts on the journal. it’s very sad. Auld tony needs a hobby.
@Nick Drake: Very good Nick. Since tony [fiona] moved onto to being Michael I actually completely ignore his comments but I took the time or read yours. There are so many with multiple accounts on the journal. it’s very sad. Auld tony needs a hobby.
@Caz 17: I’d leave him off Caz; he is (really ‘they’) wrecking his credibility incrementally daily.
@Thomas Francis: I’d agree. He/she used to infuriate me but now it’s sad. God help us when this referendum is over. Tony will be lost. Sorry for the “god” reference tony. You can come back with some dogma related comment I’m sure.
Yet more lies and misleading information from the no side. They obviously feel their own argument is so thin that they have to make stuff up.
@James O’Nolan: The claim that abortions can increase the risk of breast cancer is a totally new one on me.
@Nick Drake: it is in Facebook pro-life pages, as quoted above and stated by an unqualified pro-life counselling service which had to be closed down.
@Nick Drake: Not for me.
I’ve heard that more than once.
I even seen a man carrying it on a poster at the Pearl River St. Patrick’s Day parade easily 12 years ago.
This claim has been around for a long time and has also been debunked a long time ago.
And yet STILL the “Pro-Life” crowd recite it as fact.
@Tricia G: on the principle that a pro-life porkie pie repeated often enough by enough supports becomes eventually accepted as a supposed “truth”. Not a single oncologist in the world has ever supported the nonsensical claim of a causal link between abortion and breast cancer.
@Nick Drake: long espoused by the Catholic Pro life groups, shameful stuff:
https://www.irishcatholic.com/healthcare-abortion-ongoing-studies/
@Nick Drake: yet another catholic pro life group, albeit trying to hide behind a professional sounding name:
https://humanlife.ie/uncategorized/the-abortion-breast-cancer-link-the-facts/
@Michael Lang: yep, here is that story and details Sherlock being unhappy that the government would criticise it, shocking stuff:
http://www.thejournal.ie/simon-harris-crisis-pregnancy-clinic-2966473-Sep2016/
@Nick Drake: and one more from the charmers at Youth Defence:
@Paul Fahey: those 3 links are conclusive of the false assertions made by pro-life.
To summarise pro-life.
1. We never ever said that abortion causes or is linked to breast cancer in women.
2. We did say it but it is true and all the science proves that abortion causes breast cancer.
3. Nearly everyone knows that pro-life never lies and so whatever we say has to be true by definition and needs no proof.
4. What’s a few lies to save foetuses which are like fully developed 6 month old real babies.
5. Let’s invent a distraction.
@Paul Fahey: Goodman, did you open them curtains? What did you do after picking up your dole?
@Patrick Mallon: you seem unable to present any substantive argument. That’s because the position of the “Pro-Life” is so lame.
@Patrick Mallon: I went round and watched the snooker with your wife.
@Paul Fahey: Brilliant!!
The history of existence of a human being starts at conception. Fact.
@Vit Raiser: not a human being. Human beings start at birth.
@Michael Lang: I am sorry but that is not biologically factual
@Vit Raiser:
Or, more succinctly, LIFE begins at conception.
How can anyone who is sane and logical dispute this ?
@Vit Raiser: human beings. A foetus has human potential and human characteristics but does not become a human being with legal personality until born alive. It is not a matter of biology.
@Thomas Francis: Life of a rudimentary, inchoate, and undeveloped form starts at conception but most fails to implant.
@Thomas Francis: “LIFE begins at conception” – and when should that ‘human life’ get protection ?
@Vit Raiser: why do we celebrate birth days and not conception days then?
@Ian McNally: It’s funny that we don’t because conception is so much more fun. Maybe we should change this.
I’m conceived ; therefore I am. Laughing.
@Vit Raiser: ok Vic =- if that is what you believe, dont get an abortion. Otherwise, stay away from anybody elses beliefs’ It is simply not your business
@Thomas Francis: maybe I could be done for potential manslaughter for having a wank as I am potentially preventing conception! Cop on. A larger then you think amount of conceptions end before 12 weeks without any abortion. Nature just ended something that was never meant to be. The pro life side play dirty and get loud and emotional when challenged. It’s a laughing stock. If the sane people vote in numbers I think a repeal is likely.
@Vit Raiser: can you explain why then, if a woman gives birth before 24 weeks, or if the baby weighs less than 500g, a birth certificate cannot be provided?
@Vit Raiser: it is in Tony’s head. Read once more what he said, human life does not begin until birth. It’s very important to recognise that Tony is an extremely vocal supporter of the pro abortion cause. Like this article, purporting to represent pro life opinion as a whole, does Tony’s warped life value represent the majority on the pro abortion side? I suspect not but it is very revealing as to where Tony himself is coming from. How can one be humane when one does not recognise human life in the first place?
@Michael Lang: Says you- who would never have been born if an absolutely unique ‘non-human’ had been aborted by your mother.It’s ironic that the pro choice side employ jesuitical thinking to evade a perfectly reasonable connection between the apparently disposable unborn and the cherised baby that abortion, and only abortion, removes from the world. Some years ago an ‘artist’ produced a necklace from a string of foetuses- what do you think of that- mere use of waste material or an insult to humanity? If you’re pro choice it should surely be the former so at least have the intellectual honesty to say so, rather than using emotive language about ‘trusting women’ or ‘they’re our wives and sisters’ etc. BTW both my wife and sister are voting no.
Human development starts at conception, human being starts at birth. A foetus is not a human being. We are not 9 months older than what we count, pregnant women are not counted as two in the census.
@Vit Raiser: A caterpillar is not a butterfly! Fact!
The journal is portraying this as news? WTF?
Not a single NO poster makes that claim. Just some bizarre and little known websites that nobody views,
Great work journal for yet another irrelevant fact check.
@Johnny Bellew: I think it’s important all lies and misleading information is refuted. People should vote on the facts.
@Johnny Bellew: All the No side have is misinformation, hyperbolic language and emotive images. If they had decent arguments we’d be debating them instead of exposing their BS claims.
@Johnny Bellew: Little know website? Facebook with 1.4 billion active users per day?
@The Risen: Some of the No side at least, not all.
@Brian Casey: also recorded by pro-life counselors in a counselling service on the NCR which was shut down by regulatory authorities.
Abortion and breast cancer causation is a recurring meme on the pro-life side.
@Johnny Bellew: You are LYING.
I’ve heard that claim more than once.
I even seen a man carrying it on a poster at the Pearl River St. Patrick’s Day parade easily 12 years ago.
This claim has been around for a long time and has also been debunked a long time ago.
So no, it’s not some “out there” claim that a tiny minority of “pro-life” people claim as fact.
@Johnny Bellew:
Well John, this article was published (as of now) 22 mins ago, and yet the now infamous construct was on it – like everything else – 2 minutes later, and in stereo.
Surely the readers have caught on by now; it’s likely a sustained co-ordinated effort to smother all reasonable arguments, and to suffocate the truth through distraction and baiting. Edward Bernays really would be enviable.
The nature of my job requires that 3 pc screens be open simultaneously, and yet – notwithstanding professional commitments – I could not replicate such propaganda saturation.
@Johnny Bellew: Another journal check – not to be confused with a fact check.
@Johnny Bellew: actually Johnny, Marion Murphy and Maria Mhic Mheanmain regularity espoused that very “fact” on this site. Further, Sherlock and the rest of her brigade have also espoused it on national media.
The fake claim has been around for at least 15 years.
@The Risen: Yes.
It was exposed again back in 2016.
Lies, lies, glorious lies are the byword of the so called “Pro-Life” side
@Johnny Bellew: scroll down a little there fella and you will see four links I have provided of pro life groups forwarding the assertion that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer. You’re welcome.
@Johnny Bellew: true facts deny and negate lies.
Pro-Life lies.
@Thomas Francis: your Avatar is similar to the Facebook image publishing the lie.
@The Risen: I intended to vote yes because the Eight imposes misery on a certain number of women forced to carry unviable babies, now that repeal is tied to abortion on demand up to 12 weeks I’m voting no, rather than impose death on thousands. Is that a decent argument worth debating?
@Michael Lang: who are this group and what proportion of the pro-life number do they purport to represent? It’s important because Tony you are fond of sweeping generalizations to further your anti-RC bigoted cause. I see no difference here. It’s kind of like saying that nut jobs like Smith and Coppinger are wholly representative of the pro abortion lobby. Some of us realise that this isn’t true.
@Michael Bride: “now that repeal is tied to abortion on demand up to 12 weeks I’m voting no, rather than impose death on thousands. Is that a decent argument worth debating?”
It’s one of the better ones, but I wouldn’t take too much from that.
My response? Whats ‘being imposed on thousands’ won’t change regardless of the result, as women will still have abortions (which are now readily available), they’ll be just having unsafe, unsupervised ones like they are now, instead of safe, supervised ones that a yes vote would ultimately lead to.
So you’re not actually saving a life by voting no, no matter how warm and fuzzy your vote makes you feel. You’re just risking an additional life, the life of the woman.
@The Risen: it’s like saying that fatal shootings occur with handguns. What’s the point in banning their sale here therefore. Think about it lad.
@The Risen: ‘So you’re not actually saving a life by voting no, no matter how warm and fuzzy your vote makes you feel. You’re just risking an additional life, the life of the woman.
‘
Flawless logic. Game over!
@Sean @114: The abortion pill is alrady banned here. The ban is completely ineffective. Worst case, the purchader is temporarily inconvenienced by customs seizing the first one they order.
Think about it lad indeed.
@The Risen: It doesn’t make me feel ‘warm and fuzzy’ it makes me feel human with a degree of compassion for all- even those whose humanity is denied for the convenience of others. And yes, women would still have abortions, but I expect responsibility from grown adults (victims of rape and child exploitation are of course another matter)- sexual intercourse leads to pregnancy so avoid the former to escape the latter, along with potential unsafe abortions- I know that’s harsh but not as harsh as the verdict passed on the unborn so the likes of you can feel liberal, warm and fuzzy.
@The Risen: gun sale is also banned, guess what?, there’s one on every second corner. So what’s your point, sell them in Tesco? Simples.
@Sean @114: i live in a town and no way is there a gun on every second corner….are you feeling ok ?
More embarrassing stuff from the journal. Becoming more irrelevant by the day.
@Johnny Bellew: I actually pity the pro-life shdecwhen they are confronted with their deliberate, calculated and intentional lies.
@Johnny Bellew: How can you say it’s embarrassing? It’s invaluable truth!
@Johnny Bellew: well Johnny you keep commenting so it’s relevant too you.
@Johnny Bellew: There’s another story I’ve seen on FB. It states that if abortion is murder, then a bj is cannabilism.
Any truth that?
@Johnny Bellew: Yet you comment every time
Taken from the Journal back in 2016 and backed up by original sources.
THE DIRECTOR OF a crisis pregnancy clinic in Dublin has today repeated controversial claims a staff member made about links between abortion and breast cancer.
A recent investigation by The Times (Ireland edition) involved secretly recording a consultation in the clinic between a staff member and a woman seeking advice on a crisis pregnancy.
During the consultation, the staff member can be heard telling the woman that terminating a pregnancy increases a woman’s risk of breast cancer and also their risk of suicide.
Speaking to Joe Duffy on RTÉ’s Liveline earlier today, director of The Women’s Centre on Berkeley Street, Patrick Jameson, claimed abortion is “the single-most preventative cause of breast cancer”.
“Even rats get breast cancer after abortion,” he said, referring to undocumented scientific trials.
The single most protective thing a woman can do to prevent breast cancer is to have a live baby.
When challenged on the issue, he told Duffy: “You can’t handle the truth”. People in Ireland are “being deceived because of the media spin”, he claimed.
Oncologists say that there is no causal link between abortion and breast cancer and no hypothesis which would explain such a supposed causal link.
This is refuting a claim that very few in the pro-life movement is making. I haven’t heard anybody make that claim. The forthcoming referendum is about healthy women aborting healthy children.. stay focused.. !!
@Stephen Duffy: it is not about healthy women aborting healthy babies. It’s about given women a choice.
@Chris lynch: yeah, giving healthy women the choice to abort healthy babies.
@Stephen Duffy:”healthy women aborting healthy babies” <- more "pro life" lies :-)
Women protecting their mental/physical health by removing non viable embryos/foetuses
Stay factual .
@Skimothy: no baby is ever harmed in an abortion.
@Michael Lang: just a life.
@Skimothy: Actually giving healthy women a choice to abort healthy babies in their own country. Yes or No the abortion figures will not change, I doubt the price of a ticket to the UK is the deciding factor in terminating a pregnancy. That might be a little hard to get your head around so you just vote no like a good man, and continue all the good work I’m sure you do with all the children in the world
@Sean @114: I cannot get past the fact that anyone that considers themselves pro-life to be actually pro-life. You are pro-birth. You have no regard for the already alive human being that currently in this country does not have a choice over what is the best course of action. As its already been raised where are the “pro-life” side on homeless children, abused children and the sickening abuse and cover ups that have ravaged this country for years? So called Pro lifers do not have the right to call themselves so.
@Katherine Murray:they’re ‘pro, forced birth’.
Sean has said that he doesn’t care if a woman took her own life by jumping off Liberty Hall -and the reason for this is that she was only killing herself ( he didn’t even think of the family that she was leaving behind her) …So in other words,he would only “care” if she was pregnant..and the reason for that is because that embryo had no choice in her decision…that is warped “pro life” thinking for yah..
“And here we have an article writen by a person calling herself Susan Daly..”
@Eugene: Editor, distinguished journalist, Image Businesswoman of the Year and numerous awards winner.
Have you any distinctions?
@Michael Lang: that wouldn’t be you on another abortion thread Michael would it?
@TradingDuck: I’m still permitted in a free society to post my views and to point out when liars tell lies.
@Michael Lang: what are her medical credentials?
Now for some ACTUAL news from a real news source;
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/more-than-half-of-fianna-fil-parliamentary-party-backing-no-vote-in-referendum-36870462.html
@Skipper Mac: FF is and was the original pro-life party. It’s way down from the 100% back in 1983.
@Michael Lang: was it really 100% in 83 or are you just making that up? That’s some turn up though from the second biggest party. Would be interesting to see the real FG numbers also.
@Sean @114: FF was totally and utterly committted to the 8th Amendment in 1983, without exception. It was truly a spooky time.
It makes Martin’s courage and leadership extraordinary.
In the absence of randomised data the best evidence is by meta-analysis. It is false Michael Lang. Just because it doesn’t tally with your view doesn’t change the fact.
@David Howth: indeed nit. When a proposition is asserted the asserted must provide empirical evidence if the assertion is to be sustained. You don’t understand the truth or basic scientific empirical method and its role.
More lies from the ProLife side. Quelle surprise
You are more at risk of breast cancer having children and breast feeding, so scare mongering, as usual.
@Jane Alford: this isn’t actually true. Breast feeding lowers your risk of breast cancer as does having children. Clearly there is no link between breast cancer risk and abortions though.
@Jane Alford: genuine question here as I actually think this is an interesting topic, but the article states that they found in experiments that birth and lactation were linked to lower incidences of breast cancer in the test subjects. I actually thought that was a rather interesting finding. But your comment seems to be refuting that statement within the article. Have you sources for your claim? Not trying to argue here, just think it would be interesting reading.
@Jeffrey McMahon: Here’s the lowdown on the link between cancer and lactation. Allegedly when a woman gives birth and as a result begins to lactate there is a change in her breast tissue which makes her slightly less susceptible to breast cancer.
Our Jesus loving friends on the right have will tell you that if a woman is pregnant and subsequently has an abortion this change in breast tissue will not happen and she will not have the reduction in risk that she would have had if she carried the child to term and lactated.
This is a fallacy, you could use the same argument to say that contraception causes cancer or that having an age of consent greater that 12 causes cancer.
They will use the absence of the change that would have otherwise happened to claim that the abortion causes cancer, that’s the fallacy. Should have stuck that in there in the second paragraph.
@Ron North: oh I understand that mate, I wasn’t implying that the people pushing for a no vote were telling the truth here. I was actually genuinely interested in what the article brought up and the study it referenced. Like if that change does exist then it could be a pathway to treating that form of cancer through some sort of synthetic replication. I haven’t the scientific mindset to be contributing to that type of research mind you but I do have an interest in the science behind things. A wonder at ingenuity if you will.
Thank you for saying that miscarriages are in fact natural abortions, therefore any rubbish they say would also apply to the women who have to painfully go through this heartbreak
@GClare: the physiological impact is similar. Good point.
“Pro-Life” itself is a lie, a lie based on dogma.
@Michael Lang: explain such a sweeping nonsensical generalisation without unveiling your anti-religious bigotry.
@Sean @114: because it ignores the life of the pregnant woman with exclusive focus on the foetus.
@Michael Lang: “pro life” means pro illegal abortions,pro mental suffering and pro physical suffering for women..
@It’s A Bay-bee!: that sums it up superbly. Right to the core point.
@Michael Lang: eh no it doesn’t ignore the life of the pregnant woman, it respects both. Pro abortion on the other hand ignores the life of the offspring. That is just simple fact whereas your charge is another sweeping generalisation, something that you are very fond of.
@Sean @114: we’re pro safe,legal abortion for the woman,and here is one of the reasons why ; In the UK,during the years 2011-2014,out of approx 800,000 safe,legal abortion procedures,just one woman died..
@It’s A Bay-bee!: http://www.lifenews.com/2017/12/22/london-abortion-clinics-botch-so-many-abortions-ambulances-have-been-called-almostr-500-times/
@Jonathan: aww bless -’lifeshytenews’ -but anyway,can you explain to the folks on here as to what a ‘botched abortion’ is ? And also,why do you want Irish women to go to those clinics where they “keep” on carrying out ‘those’ botched abortions ?
@It’s A Bay-bee!: I could ask you the same. Why do you want these clinics coming over here to do these types of abortions?
I think you mean it’s unproven.
@Stephen Duffy: false, incorrect, untrue, deceiving and groundless.
@Michael Lang: I don’t believe there is a link, however there is research carried out by people that are pro-choice that has found a link.. But the overwhelming body of evidence is that there is no link and in that case I find the claim “unproven”….
In relation to the dishonesty of “Pro-Life” side, by their multiple, repeated and incessant lies, you shall know them.
Thanks for clearing that one up. Misinformation is rife in the abortion debate.
Many in the Pro-Life camp must have their pants on fire on a constant basis.
Lies cause “Pro-Life” campaign to start spontaneously aborting.
@Michael Lang: how much do the Journal pay you bud? You’re pumping out nonsensical comments like the old Vidiprinter on Grandstand.
@Sean @114: and again, as usual, the so called “Pro-Life” side evades the substantive issues by dishonest distraction.
@Michael Lang: you don’t like it when they use your own tactics against you Michael?
@Jonathan: anything to say on the topic of the lies told by the pro-life side?
@Michael Lang: who are this “pro life side” Tony. Is this outfit speaking on behalf of all pro life people much the same as you are speaking on behalf of all pro abortionists?
@Michael Lang: Not really Michael. Both sides are guilty of half truths, lies and manipulation. The only innocent one is the unborn child caught in the middle.
@Jonathan: “the innocent unborn child” <- hard to be "innocent" if your ongoing presence is causing the woman physical/mental health issues..
@It’s A Bay-bee!: All women can have a tough time in pregnancy which is understandable but it’s hardly the baby’s fault…he or she didn’t ask to be brought into this world so it’s strange you would blame an unborn child.
@Jonathan: it’s an embryo/foetus…
what part of ‘it’s ongoing presence’ is causing the woman mental or physical issues are you struggling with ?
She doesn’t want to remain pregnant not a second longer,what part of that do ye struggle with ?
@It’s A Bay-bee!: That’s not how society works. At the moment we the Irish state recognises the life of the unborn. That is fact, the unborn is regarded as a life. You can call it whatever you want but ours laws say different. In most cases pregnancy is a choice. If my 2 year old child is causing me physical or mental I can’t just get rid of him.
I haven’t even read it and call b s on that.
Even if it were true a high rate of parity increases risk of cervical cancer, so it’s swings and roundabouts
Does seeing an unwanted pregnancy to fruition or continuing to carry a baby who will never survive cause suicide / poverty / bad relationships etc.? FFS !
@Karen O’Shaughnessy: not FFS; it is FFA.
Pride comes before the fall.
@Jonathan: lies precede discovery.
@Michael Lang: hope, optimism and delusion.
@Sean @114: I look forward to your comments on the 26th May, if you are to be seen again.
@Michael Lang: oh I’ll be here Tony. It’s not a game for me, it’s a very important life value decision for this state. I’m disappointed that you see this as some kind of game. That is representative of the loud crazy pro abortionist lefties on here though so although disappointed, not surprised. You attempt to shout down and generalise disparagingly about those who hold opposing views. That’s a desperate last resort for those of poor intellect and a haven for those that hold bigoted views.
most women wouldn’t like to risk ending up like the cancerous female lab rat after an abortion just as a part of a Leo’s social experiment.
Do you believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy?
Pro-Life, is just that and in simple terms meaning ” Live and let Live.”
In the same vein of thought shouldn’t this also apply to the opposite group in favour of “Amending the 8th” and the Pro-Life people should allow them have their opinion.
We are Human, we differ, we err, we sometimes play at being God, but behind it all. we have our weaknesses
and our failings and one of the biggest failings we have is, Not accepting opposing Viewpoints.
Please try as it is the fitting thing to do.
have your say