Changes

::: Are you taking an Oprah Winfrey approach here, as in "so what" if the book was false?  It's a good book anyway?  Or so what if the Wikipedia editor is a fake, his edits were likable any way?  Your statement about the Lancet study on your talk page is false in at least two independent ways, and you can't vouch for the other articles either.  Enough said.  I know I'd immediately correct such a falsehood, but I leave that up to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:24, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Are you taking an Oprah Winfrey approach here, as in "so what" if the book was false?  It's a good book anyway?  Or so what if the Wikipedia editor is a fake, his edits were likable any way?  Your statement about the Lancet study on your talk page is false in at least two independent ways, and you can't vouch for the other articles either.  Enough said.  I know I'd immediately correct such a falsehood, but I leave that up to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:24, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Andy, I have read the studies.  I find it ironic that you falsely claim that I haven't, then dismiss them while proclaiming that you haven't either.  If you'll bother to look at the list again, I've listed some details of the methods and the results of many of them, and I will add more as I have time.  Perhaps you could clarify what exactly your issue is with the Lancet article.  As I said above, it combined data from a number of previous studies and analyzed it.  I will quote from it:  "...neither the results from the individual studies nor their weighted average suggest any adverse effect on the subsequent risk of breast cancer for women with prospective records of having had one or more pregnancies that ended as an induced abortion, compared with women having no record of such a pregnancy.  Furthermore, among the studies with prospective records of induced abortion, no significant variation in the results was found between those with objective and those with self reported information" p. 1010.  If you want to claim that doesn't deny that abortion increases breast cancer go right ahead, but your logic is difficult to follow.  I guess the collaborative attitude disappears when the data make you unhappy.  You don't have to believe the data, but to deny them is ridiculous.  [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:56, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Andy, I have read the studies.  I find it ironic that you falsely claim that I haven't, then dismiss them while proclaiming that you haven't either.  If you'll bother to look at the list again, I've listed some details of the methods and the results of many of them, and I will add more as I have time.  Perhaps you could clarify what exactly your issue is with the Lancet article.  As I said above, it combined data from a number of previous studies and analyzed it.  I will quote from it:  "...neither the results from the individual studies nor their weighted average suggest any adverse effect on the subsequent risk of breast cancer for women with prospective records of having had one or more pregnancies that ended as an induced abortion, compared with women having no record of such a pregnancy.  Furthermore, among the studies with prospective records of induced abortion, no significant variation in the results was found between those with objective and those with self reported information" p. 1010.  If you want to claim that doesn't deny that abortion increases breast cancer go right ahead, but your logic is difficult to follow.  I guess the collaborative attitude disappears when the data make you unhappy.  You don't have to believe the data are accurate, but to deny them without bothering to look is ridiculous.  [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:56, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, I read the study and have a few comments about the study article ...

Ok, I read the study and have a few comments about the study article ...