Editor: Recently I wrote a letter to the editor suggesting two topics requiring further research. Marcel Dugas from Montreal (letter to editor 9 June) disagreed with one of my suggestions that a new study be conducted on the Abortion — Breast Cancer (ABC) link by a credible organization (UPEI) using a local population base.
Mr. Dugas did not effectively argue his case. His letter contained no fact or logic to support his position. He simply made a couple of unsubstantiated statements. This tactic is similar to what most Pro-choicers do when they are unable to logically debate an issue: state that the debate, discussion, issue, etc. was settled a long time ago.
Mr. Dugas only attacked the proposed ABC study, and not the other research project I had proposed. Does this mean he acknowledges that a study of post abortion physical or mental health problems could be worthwhile? Or, maybe the real message in his letter is that he is afraid of what a serious examination of the ABC link, carried out by a university accustomed to conducting research projects, might reveal. Is he afraid that an informed woman might make the correct choice, and let her unborn child live?
Readers may be interested in knowing that research on this issue continues to show strong evidence of a link between abortion and breast cancer. This link has not yet been established to everyone’s satisfaction. But, research has not proven the opposite to be the case either. This is why bona fide research by organizations, neutral as far as the abortion debate is concerned, must continue. The more we know about this subject, the more informed women thinking about having an abortion will be. There is always something new to be learned in studies such as this, so why would anyone want to prevent these studies from taking place?