Now this is just ridiculous. It's one thing to be against abortion for moral reasons and sure there's potential dangers, but sometimes wacko's go too far on trying to tie things together in order to support their moralist agenda.

Case in point, we have Hyscience posting this blather:

Hyscience

Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, says that "Eventually, cancer fundraising businesses will have to acknowledge the elephant in their living room - the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link."

But the disclosure Malec refers to, that there is indeed an abortion-breast cancer link, hasn't yet come, and meanwhile women continue to swallow the corporate establishment line that abortion is safe and it has nothing to do with breast cancer. Yet two U.S. women have already successfully sued their abortion providers for neglecting to disclose the risks of breast cancer and emotional harm, and cancer businesses continue to raise billions for breast cancer.

So why not ask how is it then that breast cancer remains the #2 female cancer killer, that nearly 270,000 breast cancer cases and over 40,400 deaths are expected this year, and that lifetime risk for American women climbed from 1 in 12 in 1970 to 1 in 7 in 2005?

What about the 50,000 other variables that have crept into our system in the past 35 years since Roe vs. Wade? It is simply asinine to look at one decision by the Supreme Court -- totally ignoring everything else that has happened in the past 35 years -- concluding that a rise in a disease is all due to this one decision!

Talk about jumping to conclusions.

By that logic any woman that has a miscarriage or doesn't breast feed will have a massive increase in breast cancer.

he finishes his post with this

The take home message here is that abortion kills babies, and it can also kill the mothers that thought they were just killing their babies!

How about you look into how many had breast implants, how many lived in poverty, how many had tattoos, how many drank bottled water, how many lived in a polluted area, how many were immigrants from another country or what the ethnic breakdown was and if that ethnicity has a natural increased breast cancer rate? The point is, with only one report, you could point to virtually anything as the cause. You could conclude that those with breast cancer stayed out in the rain longer than those without and come to a conclusion that getting wet causes breast cancer.

There are so many other factors that could have attributed to the increased breast cancer in the women studied, but with someone with a pointed agenda to prove a link they will ignore all of that to get to their planned finding.

How is it that only one researcher has come to this conclusion out of the probable hundreds of research investigations into breast cancer causes?

And yes, I'm a pro-abortion Conservative, but that has nothing to do with this entry really. I was just shocked at the ridiculous conclusions by his post based off a single uncorroborated study and a bunch of propaganda from an anti-abortion activist group's comments that he agrees with. I link to Hyscience quite often and will of course continue to do so, this entry of his just stood out as really out there for someone whom I believe^* has a pretty lengthy background in the scientific community.

Others buying into this:

ProLifeBlogs

^* There's no way on the net to really confirm an anonymous persons claims of being in medicine for decades, but I believe him.

Beltway Traffic Jammed