Give it up on Gary, people. He must REALLY read the bible. lol. HE KNOWS!.
Gary how do I marry my PASTURE? I would love to know. That way it can pro-create, make Jared happy and I get more PASTURE ; LAND.
I may have to ABORT my fence, but it will keep the morality of the ranch in tact....sorry, couldn't pass it up, explains a lot though about this thread.

Why does this kind of story invariably turn into a Catholic-bashing opportunity?

I can't ask John Knox what he would say, but I am pretty sure that he had no problem with single folks pastoring a church.

As to the Roman Catholic Church being the whore of Babylon, I asked you first.

Ea

EA

No not all ministers must be married, but pastures over a church have to be.

Do you agree that the Roman Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon?
You recently told me you were a Presbyterian You said called God you to be one. The founder of YOUR church is John Knox, my relative. What would be his an sere to your question.

Gary--

Attempting to decipher what you wrote, I think you are saying that it is against God's word for a church leader to be unmarried and childless. Is that what you are saying--ALL Ministers of the Word must be married and have children?

Do you agree that the Roman Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon?

Here is some more common sense; if you all want me to believe that these men were called of God to live a celibate life then why dont get fixed. It is entirely against Gods word to have men over a church that are not married w/kids. Peter the first pope (so called) was married. Paul yet over the churches was not a pasture.

Gary, I don't mind you being offended by immoral sex, but please get your facts correct! Celibacy in not a cause of immoral sexual behavior.

Think about it--if someone is celibate, they are having no sex ever. Period. Ever.

If they are having sex, moral or immoral, then they cannot possibly be celibate.

You say use common sense--so do the same and think about what I just wrote.

Gary - - - Jesus lived a celibate life – yet He never – raped boys, had consensual sex with men or women, of lay with prostitutes. A man who does any of these does so because he chooses to – not because he is celibate. Stop judging whether Catholic priests should be celibate or not.

Debate - Con vs. Pro supported by facts and logic

Agreement - No debate. Position supported by warm fuzzies.

EA

Sometimes a little commonsense is necessary. We are concerned over children being raped by the clergy. I suggest that a lot more sexual immorality goes on than just rape of boys because these men dont have wifes; consensual sex w/men, consensual sex with women & sex with paid prostitutes.

When the natural order of things are tampered with by possibly well meaning scriptural interpretations, the results are normally predictable.

If I try to follow what I perceive as Bible teachings & the results are producing consistent failures then its time to reexamine my understanding & go to plan B.

debate - to contend in words, to discuss a question by considering opposed arguments, to participate in a debate, to argue about

doesn't say a word about agree

I love a good cause and effect debate. It could be said that water is the cause of all drowning deaths. Air is at least 33% to blame for all fires. And guns don't kill. (They are designed to hold flowers).

Yep. It is somebody's fault but don't look at me!

Who is this guy? Gary. oh he thinks he's god . lol . kinda of scary. he decides what the definition of
"evils of promiscuity & loose living" are
and
"I hope we can kind of come together a stand for what the Lord would want & whats best for us & our neighbor.

gary, who's lord. Allah? or what the dictionary defines as 'peer, ruler, proprietor, boss, nobleman, master, owner, governor.'

heck I am LORD Will. According to the dictionary, I meet most of the definitions, except governor. I am not that evil. anyway use higher power and you may get more respect because self rightous people are considered narcissus sociopaths by most sociologist.

Ignorance is bliss, isn't is, Gary?

I will be most happy to read anything--including your church sanctioned stuff--that disproves what I posted about perps and celibacy.

Provide me links that indicate that celibacy contributes to sexual abuse and I will issue a formal, public apology to you.

EA

Thanks for your opinion, to bad its wrong. (lol)

Mike you are the BEST!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is...:-)

EA, yes. I think it semantics. Let me give an example. Here is the FDA warning on cigarettes: http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/La...

Notice some say "Cigarettes cause lung disease." However, cigarettes don't cause disease. "Inhaling the smoke with its carcinogens correlates to lung disease" is more accurate. I doubt there has ever been a study in which scientists loaded human persons with tobacco smoke, recorded the results, and concluding by those results that the lung disease contracted was the direct result of inhaling smoke. No, instead most people understand when a cig package says "cause" it means it is "linked to." I believe this is how Mr. Valdivia interprets "cause."

Hictoria

I'm like a duck in water for the next 366 days of this presidential campaign..:-)

Have a good one

Fine as frogs hair. Laying low... How about you Mike?

Hictoria

You've been away for a long time,perhaps this thread was a trap to lure you back in..:-)..besides you a know we are into recycling.

How have you've been?

How many times has this topic came up now? I think all the bases were covered by both sides. Time to move on.

Point taken, Writein.

Edith Ann.

It is useless to argue with a man who refuses to educated himself.

Gary--

For the record, celibacy does NOT cause immoral behavior.

It doesn't. Immoral behavior is a choice. Folks can maintain control over their actions. Not having an active sex life doesn't cause folks to attack others and force them into sex.

Again---if you would bother to educate yourself on the dynamics of sexual abuse you will find that most all perps have a regular age and gender appropriate sex partner. They typically have not been going without sex. The priests relied on the perceived power of their position, one of trust, to groom entire families.

And, also for the record, not all Christians are moral, and not all immoral folks are heathens...Jim Baker...Ted Haggard...Jimmy Swaggart...Benny Hinn...or maybe they are...

So, until you can accurately discuss this topic, please refrain from posting about sexual abuse issues. You, like Sam, really do a disservice when you only get part of it right.

Jared, you think all this non-agreement is a matter of semantics? Really?

Morality is subjective. I find this man and others who impose their beliefs on other peoples bodys and lives to be Immoral. I love the way the "christians" on this thread judge everyone's actions. I thought that was god's job? A lot of hipocritical staements.

Me thinks some protesth to much..... How many of these "rollers" are really closet freaks. ;)

Wow, much said in a little over 24 hours. As I mentioned earlier, I think it is a semantics discussion going on that I think could be cleared up by asking Mr. Valdivia, "Does abortion cause or correlate?" It is interesting that a court case has awarded a woman damages because a clinic failed to mention ABC link. I know court cases are not infallible, but am pointing out that it may not be absurd as EA may be trying to say.

Gary, you asked Tophat, but I will say it, "Celibacy does not cause child abuse or immoral behavior. That is something the human heart decides to do well enough on its own unless it is a psychological issue." No, this is something much more heinous that the ability to blame celibacy, it is sin and the ability of the human person to choose it.

Kyle, I think you know better than to think that Catholics believe it is ok to sin in moderation. Moderation is the key for goods, like having a drink or eating a slice. There is no teaching that allows or makes it ok to freely choose evil, even in moderation. Those criminal child and predominantly yound adult sex offenders deserve every bit of justice even if the crime was done once.

Somewhat on topic. What do these discussees say...tune into today's blog for this related topic.

It is in my opinion, that pictures of aborted and hack up babies are similar to child porn. If I had my way this public showing would be outlawed. Before Gary White or whatever his name sticks his nose into this. I am Pro-life.
Plus this is a filler story for the Victoria Advocate instead of doing real investigating.
Here is something to back myself up.
http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/weblo...

Out for your evening troll, Kyle? :-}

Edith, secular sources point to various studies that point out the same information on the abortion-breast cancer link:

Abortion 'triples breast cancer risk': Fourth study finds terminations linked to disease
By Simon Caldwell

It is the fourth epidemiological study to report such a link in the past 14 months, with research in China, Turkey and the U.S. showing similar conclusions

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/art...

New Study Shows 'Best Predictor of Breast Cancer'
The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons published a study yesterday entitled, "The Breast Cancer Epidemic." It showed that, among seven risk factors, abortion is the "best predictor of breast cancer," and fertility is also a useful predictor. [1]
The study by Patrick Carroll of PAPRI in London showed that countries with higher abortion rates, such as England & Wales, could expect a substantial increase in breast cancer incidence. Where abortion rates are low (i.e., Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic) a smaller increase is expected. Where a decline in abortion has taken place, (i.e., Denmark and Finland) a decline in breast cancer is anticipated.
Carroll used the same mathematical model for a previous forecast of numbers of breast cancers in future years for England & Wales based on cancer data up to 1997 that has proved quite accurate for predicting cancers observed in years 1998 to 2004. [2]
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/p...

"Abortion-Breast Cancer: 53 of 66 Studies in 54 Years Show Link"
In 1996, the Brind quantitative meta-analysis of the extant induced abortion and breast cancer studies showed that there were 23 studies, 10 of which were statistically significant. Since then, there has been no tabulation to include the studies after 1997. An unpublished review in 2003 showed that there were 40 studies which showed a positive association between induced abortion and breast cancer.
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/18/ab...

In June of this year, a team of scientists published an article in the journal Cancer Epidemiology in which they documented a link between abortion and breast cancer, reporting that abortion “triples breast cancer risk.” When the study was published, Professor Jack Scarisbrick, chairman of the British pro-life pregnancy agency, LIFE, asked when the medical establishment would pull its head out of the sand. He pointed out that the abortion lobby has been downplaying this evidence and denying the link for years!
http://www.all.org/article/index/id/N...

Mary Ann--

They used the pictures of the aborted fetuses to get your attention and it does. Then they give you the literature.

The literature is Catholic Church generated 'breast cancer is caused by abortion' stuff. I HAVE THE LITERATURE! I HAVE TALKED TO SAM! Sam and I spent over an hour together this past summer! Do not continue to tell me I don't get it! I get it. You don't.

And children should only be abused in moderation..

;-)

About drinking? Jared is just being sociable, like always.

Jared

Listen to Maryann.

Hello Gary,

A good Catholic would know that wine and beer in moderation are the key, or even abstaining works for some. Also, a driver should never drink while driving- right, Kyle?

You bring up some valid points, and to my knowledge, Mr. Valdivia is involved in other ministries as well, namely the Gabriel Project, which helps mothers with children. If you ever get to talk to him, ask him about the other things. I don't think he has only a few irons in the fire.

Talk to Sam again when you see him and ask for the literature, or ask him about some studies. I know he's driving home the Advocate stuff lately, but he's got other info too.

I don't care to monopolize a discussion too long, EA. I'm sure others would like to comment.

The days are short this time of year! So, hope you have a good afternoon!

Tophat

Quickly delete her comment before people can read it, it might cause them to think a little.

I want you to honestly tell me that celibacy doesn't contribute even just a little to immoral sexual behavior.

We agree. It's an anti-abortion campaign. And because abortion's affects are many and varied, this one topic of the link to breast cancer does come up.

What are Valdivia's signs mainly about, EA? Dead children. That's the MAJOR effect of abortion, and Sam does let people know.

I say a man that cares about babies live will care about women's health too.

As for my support of this mesage-yes.

Particularly when it has a scientific and medical basis: The link to abortion and breast cancer is "the fourth epidemiological study to report such a link in the the last 14 months, with research in China, Turkey and the U.S. showing similar conclusions."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/art...

What I wouldn't do for some honesty, did some body call for me?

Everybody knows a good Catholics affinity to beer & wine. I would like to see a study done linking drinking to sex out side of marriage, which is where most of the unwanted pregnancies come from.

I will support Sams anti abortion signs if he will also teach the best way to not have unwanted pregnancies, Being born again would be a good place to start.

My hat is off to Maryann/Sam etc for there stance, but to me just making a stance against abortion with out dealing with the causes of it is like shooting at the snakes tail & never focusing in on its head.

But maybe taking such a stand against abortion will help in a round about way to bring awareness to the evils of promiscuity & loose living.

I hope we can kind of come together a stand for what the Lord would want & whats best for us & our neighbor. Thanks EA, MaryAnn, Jared for your passion.

If his life depended on it, Sam could not name a study or where to find it. I've already asked him that in person. He just knows what he's told. The papers that he holds in his hand are copies of a letter to the editor that the Advocate wouldn't publish months ago. He's been carrying those around and slapping them on cars downtown for months.

This IS about abortion. It is not about breast cancer. Period. There is never any mention of any other risk factor for breast cancer unless it is mentioned by a desenting viewpoint.

Tophat--I agree! It was a cruel statement. Just like saying breast cancer is caused by abortions. Neither statement is true, and that is what makes them cruel. Rebecca explained the absurdity of the statements.

I can see the forest--it's an anti-abortion campaign. Period. It has nothing to do with women's health. That angle is just the hook they use to engage folks like you.

I feel really scared for women who only use Sam's and Paul's information as their gauge on getting mamograms, etc., because they may think they are not at risk. Those two probably cause far more women to be at risk than they 'educate'. That is scary. And as long as you defend their logic and scanty real information, you're contributing to that, Mary Ann.

Mike is right--their language is carefully scripted to get a reaction. Folks need to remember there is way more to the story than is being presented here.

Yeah, where did Jared go?

EA said: My sign will say: "Taking a vow of celibacy while pledging allegiance to the Catholic Church makes you sexually abuse children".

That is the cruelest, mot repulsive thing I have read in years- you assuredly have the right to opinion and post whatever you desire on a cardboard box.

I solely wish I would have missed it.

It will take me quite some time to connect it to breast cancer. Might be a link in there somewhere.

Rebecca, I got your point, I think. Because EA thinks Valdivia's message is absurd, she too makes an absurd claim to counter it. That's what I gathered from your statement.

Only thing is, she and I don't agree on what's absurd and what isn't.
Anyway..... have a good afternoon.

See, that sign's wording I disagree with and I think does less good than he realizes.

We agree Edith, at least in part.

This is about abortion AND its affects.

You cannot separate this anymore than you can cigarettes and smoking from second hand smoke. If I care about little ones not getting cancer from smoke, you can bet I care too about the adults smoking as well and how it affects them.

If Sam believes AND can support with peer-reviewed medical journals his point that abortion and breast cancer are related, then each topic is fair discussion.

In fact if he was pro-life and knew of the link but didn't bring it up, it would be a tragic ommission.

All I know Mr. Valdivia owes me for scaring the bejesus out of me.

For some reason, I was the first one out of church one Sunday morning and as I was walking down the front steps of OLV,Mr Valdivia appeared out of nowhere holding up a hideous sign that stated " anyone that voted for President Obama is guilty of murdering innocent babies." I'm paraphrasing because I can't recall the exact words."

I'm and old man and I should be able to handle that but that stuck with me the whole day. I can't imagine what it does to unsuspecting children.

I think we have enough half-truths being taken for fact. Perhaps,Mr. Valdiva's sign should include " according to" and a highlighted " MAY BE LINKED " but I'm pretty sure he knows that if he did that, the message wouldn't have the same affect.

Maryann, EA used absurdity to make a point. Making the point wasn't absurd. What "action" was absurd? I'm confused.

Yeah, you're a great driver! I think we should slow down a little bit, as I think we've left Jared somewhere...

I'll repeat this because it is the most accurate assessment I can make of this entire discussion--

So, no, he does not present a broader picture. If this were REALLY and TRULY about keeping women cancer free, he'd be talking about ALL the risk factors that have been identified. Alcohol use, family history, obesity, etc., are never mentioned.

This is an anti-abortion campaign disguised as a health warning. How disingenuous! Call it what it is, an anti-abortion campaign and stop there, and I bet a lot of folks would be just fine with that.

And Rebecca is correct--I'm surprised you didn't click on it sooner.

Sam--is this as much fun as that time last summer at the Farmer's Co-op? It's a lot cooler today, isn't it?

Again, EA, you can't see the forest for the trees.

I surmise Sam is for stopping abortion, because it kills children, because it can leave women wounded emotionally and spiritually, and because it can damage a women's physical health.

I'm sure he has more reasons.....

But you zero in on this one topic. Hey- go for it! It's good to get the information out, and I appreciate the discussion.

http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Indu...

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/ca...

Enjoying the ride?

Thanks for the apt label of EA's action, Rebecca.

Mary Ann--Picture in the context of concept, not the image he literally puts on the sign!

So, no, he does not present a broader picture. If this were REALLY and TRULY about keeping women cancer free, he'd be talking about ALL the risk factors that have been identified. Alcohol use, family history, obesity, etc., are never mentioned.

This is an anti-abortion campaign disguised as a health warning. How disingenuous! Call it what it is, an anti-abortion campaign and stop there, and I bet a lot of folks would be just fine with that.

I am really tired of folks with hidden agendas! Gosh, what I would do for just a bit of honesty. Anywhere!

If "sharper" means trading insults, perhaps! I'll stay off the caffeine if that's what it brings.

You're missing the point, and I think on purpose, EA. THERE IS evidence of abortion and breast cancer being linked. The man has a right to state so, and he's got the papers with him, I bet, that show the statistics.

Maryann, Edith was "demonstrating absurdity by being absurd." When you reduce information to just a few words, the facts get left out. Some people might call purposefully leaving out facts, "lying by omission."

Mary Ann--have another cup of coffee! You are usually sharper than this!

If Sam can say that breast cancer is caused by abortion, then I can say that child sexual abuse is cause by priests.

Both claims are equally narrowly focused and without additional information, are they not? Neither statement presents the entire picture, or is completely accurate, is it?

Fair is fair.

I think Mr. Valdivia is presenting a broader picture, but you don't see it. The pictures he's shown with have an 8 or 9 month gestation fetus in a trash can.

I saw that picture once in the Adoration Chapel at St. Mary's Catholic Church. It makes one think about what's being done to the children.

This picture and others have little to do with breast cancer but much to do with the larger picture of abortion and its affects on our society.

He takes a lot of heat for the more graphic pictures, which DO present a larger picture. BTW, I have mixed feelings about where the pictures should be displayed. But I agree with you that he as the right to display them. I can truly see both sides of the issue.

EA says, "My sign will say: 'Taking a vow of celibacy while pledging allegiance to the Catholic Church makes you sexually abuse children.'"

We're talking about a link to abortion and breast cancer.

In a move off topic, you seem to be making a link to celibacy and child molestation. If you can't find statistics and studies to support either way, as Mike has, then I think you should rethink your signage.

Thank you , Mike!

I'm just curious, Mary Ann--don't you find it odd that you try to present a broader remark when defending the very myopic Tasin and Valdivia? It seems you require us to look at a bigger picture, but not them. Why is that?

Further results linking breast cancer to induced abortion:

New Study Shows 'Best Predictor of Breast Cancer'

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons published a study yesterday entitled, "The Breast Cancer Epidemic." It showed that, among seven risk factors, abortion is the "best predictor of breast cancer," and fertility is also a useful predictor. [1]

The study by Patrick Carroll of PAPRI in London showed that countries with higher abortion rates, such as England & Wales, could expect a substantial increase in breast cancer incidence. Where abortion rates are low (i.e., Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic) a smaller increase is expected. Where a decline in abortion has taken place, (i.e., Denmark and Finland) a decline in breast cancer is anticipated.

Carroll used the same mathematical model for a previous forecast of numbers of breast cancers in future years for England & Wales based on cancer data up to 1997 that has proved quite accurate for predicting cancers observed in years 1998 to 2004. [2]

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/p...

"Abortion-Breast Cancer: 53 of 66 Studies in 54 Years Show Link"

In 1996, the Brind quantitative meta-analysis of the extant induced abortion and breast cancer studies showed that there were 23 studies, 10 of which were statistically significant. Since then, there has been no tabulation to include the studies after 1997. An unpublished review in 2003 showed that there were 40 studies which showed a positive association between induced abortion and breast cancer.

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/18/ab...

In June of this year, a team of scientists published an article in the journal Cancer Epidemiology in which they documented a link between abortion and breast cancer, reporting that abortion “triples breast cancer risk.” When the study was published, Professor Jack Scarisbrick, chairman of the British pro-life pregnancy agency, LIFE, asked when the medical establishment would pull its head out of the sand. He pointed out that the abortion lobby has been downplaying this evidence and denying the link for years!

http://www.all.org/article/index/id/N...

We can choose to believe as we wish, yet women need to have this information particularly if they have a history of breast cancer in the family.

Mary Ann, no where did I say he did. I am merely pointing out that one can find stuff to support whatever, hence the CDC and WebMD data.

As to my signage about the priests--do you deny that priest were abusing children? Of course you don't because you know it happened. Fr. Stan is mentioned because he is the one who headed up the damage control for the Vatican.

No--if you all are going to accept Paul's and Sam's info as gospel--and there are never any exceptions listed, then please accept mine, without exception. That's only fair.

If the self-appointed guardians of the uteri are not going to present comprehensive, accurate information, they need to get out of the business. To do otherwise is to continue to do a disservice to all women.

Results from major prospective studies

The largest, and probably the most reliable, study on this topic was done during the 1990s in Denmark, a country with very detailed medical records on all its citizens. In this study, all Danish women born between 1935 and 1978 (a total of 1.5 million women) were linked with the National Registry of Induced Abortions and with the Danish Cancer Registry. All of the information about their abortions and their breast cancer came from registries – it was very complete and was not influenced by recall bias.

After adjusting for known breast cancer risk factors, the researchers found that induced abortion(s) had no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer. The size of this study and the manner in which it was done provide good evidence that induced abortion does not affect a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer.

Another large, prospective study was reported on by Harvard researchers in 2007. This study included more than 100,000 women who were between the ages of 29 and 46 at the start of the study in 1993. These women were followed until 2003.
Again, because they were asked about childbirths and abortions at the start of the study, recall bias was unlikely to be a problem. After adjusting for known breast cancer risk factors, the researchers found no link between either spontaneous or induced abortions and breast cancer.

The California Teachers Study also reported on more than 100,000 women in 2008. Researchers asked the women in 1995 about past induced and spontaneous abortions. While the women were being followed in the study, more than 3,300 developed invasive breast cancer. There was no difference in breast cancer risk between the group who had either spontaneous or induced abortions and those who had not had an abortion.

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCa...

Interesting read and while the study admits the information in the U.S. is hard to verify because of recall bias it doesn't justify an unqualified layman to dispensing medical information. ..IMO

Sheesh! EA, be reasonable. No "study" or DVD Fr. Stan De Boe has links sexual abuse to celibacy.

Coach Sandusky was married. Didn't keep him or some of the other coaches coming out of the woodwork from going after young men.

Also, the teacher at my school who was the Boy Scout leader and molesting young men was married too.

Remember, you said your sign would link celibacy to child abuse?? And who calls Valdivia off base?

You are truly not being reasonable, one quality which I have often admired in your posts.

And... you're also way off topic for some strange reason.

Back to the issue.

Society didn't want to hear that smoking caused cancer either. The first study out to find a link was in 1928 when a British journal linked smoking with lung cancer.

Our National Cancer Institute, for many decades, did not strongly support this link. It was only after the US Surgeon General in 1964 linked cigarettes with lung cancer that the NCI acknowledged a link.

It's been 50 years since the first study linking breast cancer to abortion was published in 1957, according to Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, MD, in a testimony to the Senate Finance Committee in 2008. She said that before 1999, there were 17 statistically significant studies linking abortion with breast cancer.

I'm glad Valdivia is getting the message out. I might not agree with all that he does, but without his presence, we wouldn't be discussing this.

Women wouldn't read that in England there has been an 80 per cent increase in the rate of breast cancer since 1971, when in the wake of the Abortion Act, the number of abortions rose from 18,000 to nearly 200,000 a year.

Or that earlier this year, Dr Louise Brinton, a senior researcher with the U.S. National Cancer Institute who did not accept the link, reversed her position to say she was now convinced abortion increased the risk of breast cancer by about 40 per cent.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/art...

EA, sure, we disagree. But women need to be informed of these new studies published in reputable medical journals and surfacing in countries worldwide.

Thanks for the dialogue.

But, over at WebMD, I find did abortion listed:

"Factors not related to breast cancer

Fibrocystic breast changes.
Multiple pregnancies.
Coffee or caffeine intake.
Antiperspirants.
Underwire bras.
Abortion or miscarriage.
Breast implants.

Scientists are still investigating whether breastfeeding, smoking, high-fat diets, lack of exercise, and environmental pollution increase breast cancer risk. Some studies have suggested that women who are using birth control pills have a very slight increased risk of developing breast cancer. That risk disappears after stopping them for 10 years or more. Still other studies show no relation. More research is needed and is underway to confirm these findings."

Thanks to the wonderful internet, one can find stuff to support just about any position they have, can't they?

Do I really need a peer review journal to substantiate what has been widely reported and addressed? I don't think so.

But I have viewed the DVD of the collaborative efforts of Dr. Wayne Duehn and Fr. Stan Deboe that were focused on the sex abuse issue. The DVD was produced by Dr. Duehn's risk assessment group, Praesidium in Dallas. That was the final result as accepted by the Church.

I'm done. We are never going to agree. Mary Ann will always believe Sam and Paul are doing a much needed service to our community. Jared will aways maintain they are taking a moral stand. I will always question the validity of the information they present, limited as it is.

And, in the interest of accuracy, here, from the CDC, are the risk factors for breast cancer:

Risk Factors
Research has found several risk factors that may increase your chances of getting breast cancer, including—

•Getting older.
•Being younger when you first had your menstrual period.
•Starting menopause at a later age.
•Being older at the birth of your first child.
•Never giving birth.
•Not breastfeeding.
•Personal history of breast cancer or some non-cancerous breast diseases.
•Family history of breast cancer (mother, sister, daughter).
•Treatment with radiation therapy to the breast/chest.
•Being overweight (increases risk for breast cancer after menopause).
•Long-term use of hormone replacement therapy (estrogen and progesterone combined).
•Having changes in the breast cancer-related genes BRCA1 or BRCA2.
•Drinking alcohol (more than one drink a day).
•Not getting regular exercise.
Having a risk factor does not mean you will get the disease. Most women have some risk factors and most women do not get breast cancer. If you have breast cancer risk factors, talk with your doctor about ways you can lower your risklower your risk and about screeningscreening for breast cancer

I did not see abortion listed, did you?

I prefer driving around in the mobile... but back to business-

EA, Sam Valdivia and I would agree on things Catholic, but we can differ on presentation. More on that later, perhaps.

As far as "bogus" information, just calling it so doesn't make it bogus.

This study showing that abortion could triple the risk for breast cancer was published in the journal of Cancer Epidemiology, a peer-reviewed medical journal. Why would you go so far as to label as bogus information that you may not agree with, but could be useful, even life-saving for some women?

"It is the fourth epidemiological study to report such a link in the past 14 months, with research in China, Turkey and the U.S. showing similar conclusions."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/art...

If you are pro-choice on so many issues, why not be pro-choice for scientific studies that could help women?

As for your sign, can you back up your statement with peer-reviewed journals to support your claim? Mr. Valdivia and many others are able to do this.

BTW, EA, we've discussed this many moons ago. Much of this info. I have bookmarked from then. I think we're spinning our wheels-- of our mobiles! lol!

Jared and Mary Ann--

Here's the problem-->Sam and Paul do not completely agree with you two. Their message IS and probably alsways will be that breast cancer is caused by abortions. Period. Amen. THAT is the problem with THEIR message.

Mary Ann--the nun study is valid because it was a controlled group of women who had not given birth. It may be old, but it is valid, and if Sam and Paul are going to insist on their message, then it must be considered.

Jared, I am not arguing morality. I am challenging bogus information. Sam and Paul have every right to stand wherever. They have every right, too, to distribute bogus information. But they should not expect it to go unchallenged. That's all I'm doing.

But, in the spirit of the season and as an act of charity, I'm will to adopt the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" position.

I am having a sign made (Sam told me to make it out of used cardboard boxes, it's lighter) so I can stand with Sam when I see him.

My sign will say: "Taking a vow of celibacy while pledging allegiance to the Catholic Church makes you sexually abuse children".

Fair enough?

Maryann, good call. Kyle will drive, everyone knows a good Catholic's affinity to beer and wine.

:-} Long as I don't have to drive!

Quick, to the Catholicmobile!

I agree, Jared, with your comment: "With the information I have read, I would never in a million years think that if a woman has or had breast cancer that she must have had an abortion. "

EA, The Catholic Church understands abortion is wrong on moral grounds due to the nature of the human person. Medicine and science are wonderful ways and searches for material truth, but provide zilch for morality. If there is no link for ABC, then to spread causation would be misleading. From what I have read, I see an argument for the correlation.

The Catholic Church does not say there is a link in ABC because She believes it morally wrong. She sees a link because medical and scientific studies show it. She holds abortion is morally wrong because it kills an innocent person regardless of a link breast cancer. To say that the Church believes there is an ABC link because of Her moral stance is misleading as well.

Of course there are other reasons breast cancer is found and these are also correlations. Age, age of first pregnancy, personal history of breast cancer and others are known to be correlated with breast cancer, notice not causation. These and other factors are known to increase a woman's chances of getting breast cancer. With the information I have read, I would never in a million years think that if a woman has or had breast cancer that she must have had an abortion.

Hello Esteemed Comrades, RB, EA, and Jared...

This is an interesting topic, with many different aspects to it.

I don't think that the main and only focus of Mr. Valdivia is that abortion causes breast cancer, though it certainly is one of his messages. I've spoken with him a couple of times, and he does have a broader outlook that I can expound on later.

As for the abortion-breast cancer link, EA, the nun study is far behind us, and there have been later and more numerous studies that are showing the same links.

These aren't from church studies, but from secular institutions and reporters. Here's one such report from the UK Daily Mail of June 2010:

Abortion 'triples breast cancer risk': Fourth study finds terminations linked to disease"
By Simon Caldwell

"An abortion can triple a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer in later life, researchers say.

A team of scientists made the claim while carrying out research into how breastfeeding can protect women from developing the killer disease.

While concluding that breastfeeding offered significant protection from cancer, they also noted that the highest reported risk factor in developing the disease was abortion.

Other factors included the onset of the menopause and smoking.
The findings, published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, are the latest research to show a link between abortion and breast cancer.

It is the fourth epidemiological study to report such a link in the past 14 months, with research in China, Turkey and the U.S. showing similar conclusions."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/art...

Edith Ann, we can all believe as we like, but when repeated, continued studies are showing the link, women need to be informed, ESPECIALLY if they have breast cancer history in their families.

As a woman, I want to know these studies are out there, and I can make decisions from these and other sources.

No, Jared, he and Paul Tasin cherry pick from Catholic sources their information, and it is not all entirely accurate. The Catholic church is never going to budge off their abortion=breast cancer stance, and they are not going to allow other reasons as the cause of breast cancer because that might make folks think there could be a possibility that they won't get breast cancer if they have an abortion.

Did you know that one of the largest studies ever done by MEDICAL professionals on breast cancer involved only nuns? Nuns with breast cancer. So, accepting what Sam and Paul espouse, we should rightly understand that each of those nuns had an abortion, correct?

Sam and Paul live in a black and white world--there are no exceptions. And as I said--once that child is born--forget about it! It is no longer of consequence. I asked Sam how many babies he fostered or adopted, and the answer was none.

As long as their message is "Breast Cancer is caused by Abortions" (and that IS their message), they are not to be taken seriously.

With that said--I will stand with Sam (and I have) and Paul and defend their right to protest, but I cannot defend their insistance on spreading bogus information. It is harmful to women suffering from breast cancer who have never had an abortion.

EA, I disagree obviously, as you well know. There are studies that do show a correlation in breast cancer and direct abortion. Will there ever be a causation proof? Well, I hope not because that would entail getting pregnant then killing the child in a controlled setting for the sake of a study. Do you have something else in mind regarding misrepresentation?

I may or may not agree with his methods, but I do know I support his standing up for the weakest of our society.

Interesting choice of music. Kind of ominous, as if, I dunno, he were about to kill someone.

Sam never presented himself as a savior of any kind, and for anyone to say so is misrepresenting what he's trying to do.

Sam is not a street corner savior! He could be if he presented valid information, but he doesn't.

Sam does a great disservice to his cause. He could be effective, but his message is lost in the lies.

And, as far as Sam is concerned, once that baby is born, it may as well be on it's own. If he fought as hard for live children as he does for unborn children, what a difference he could make.

Word of caution--do not take as gospel what Sam 'preaches'. Most of it is bogus information.