"...According to a new study published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, young women who had an abortion before having a child are at the greatest risk for developing breast cancer.
The study’s lead author Patrick Carroll calls abortion the single “best predictor” of breast cancer trends.
“An abortion in a young woman who has never had a child has a carcinogenic effect because it leaves breast cells in a state of interrupted hormonal development in which they are more susceptible,” says Carroll, director of research at PAPRI (Pension and Population Research Institute) in London.
The study adds fuel to the already fiery debate between abortion-rights advocates who believe the option to terminate a pregnancy is a basic right, and abortion foes who believe the procedure is morally and ethically wrong.
Abortion-rights proponents argue Carroll’s findings are weak and deny there is a connection between the rise in breast cancer and an increase in abortions.
For years, medical professionals have agreed that hormonal influences, including the use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT), have an effect on the development of breast cancer. But debate has raged over whether the hormonal changes caused by an abortion performed in a woman’s youth can affect her chances of developing cancer many years later..." (source)
I don't understand why there would be a debate over this. Of course there are going to be short and long term ramifications for ending a pregnancy artificially. Putting the entire morality of the abortion debate aside --How do do the same people that fight for everything else to be all natural (omg, the pesticides!) argue that something unnatural can hurt you? Does that make any sense? Even though I want to smoke and think outlawing smoking is inane and an invasion of my personal freedoms...I still know and readily admit it's bad for me and my health in the future.