To the editor,
Where does one begin to respond to the Aug. 4 letter to the editor?
First, having breast cancer does not mean a woman has had an abortion. Having said that, I do not like being accused of lying by someone who has not done her research concerning the relationship between breast cancer and abortion. From 1957 through November 2013 there have been 73 studies of that relationship. Of those 57 (78 percent) said they are related.
This is a worldwide examination of epidemiologic studies, not studies hand picked-by or paid for by those in the abortion industry. The newest of these studies was done by the Tianjin Medical University Cancer Hospital in China. Historically Chinese women have had a much lower breast cancer incidence than western women. However, since China has instituted its “one-child” policy with “no-choice” abortions, that has changed. This research found the risk to women who have had an abortion was 44 percent higher than those who have not, 76 percent higher after two and 89 percent higher after three abortions. If you want the statistical and validity information, I can furnish it. For your information, all 34 studies that demonstrate a relationship, and not one of those who said there was no relationship, were statistically significant. But I repeat, having breast cancer does not mean a woman had an abortion.
Now let’s look at the safety of abortions. The number of botched abortions has been high but we are just now learning about them due to freedom of information procedures. Until recently, these botched procedures that harmed and even killed women have been hidden by abortionists. If you want to reason things through, ask why these laws requiring enhanced medical situations have been passed. It is insulting to insinuate, in the crude imagery of the letter writer, that the absence of a vagina in legislators is why the laws were passed, not concern for the life and safety of the constituents. If the clinics are so concerned about safety, why don’t they embrace these measures that increase safety. And if you are concerned with safety, why wouldn’t surgical procedures be performed in proper facility as are all other surgical procedures or abortionists be required to have hospital privileges? Surely, it isn’t the added cost of upgrading facilities and hiring doctors other than Gossnel and his like.
And finally, we must address the writer’s “right to choose what happens and what grows in my body.” So, what is growing in a woman’s body during pregnancy? The answer is simple. The very instant the egg is fertilized, and before implantation, life has begun. And that new living being has the chromosomes of a human being. Using tricky words cannot make it anything else. But what if the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother? Every church I know of says that the threat to the mother can be treated even if the baby dies because of it. This is a long way from terminating the life of the baby simply because it is not wanted. It is a truly innocent human being that has done nothing to deserve a death sentence.
And the political statement in the last paragraph can best be answered by the many pro-life women in Congress, state legislatures, and local governments working to make women’s and their babies’ lives better.
Dave Roos
Iola, Kan.
Letter to the editor — August 7, 2014
