2011 Q4 FReepathon.Target: $88,000
Receipts & Pledges to-date: $9,135
COME ON EVERYONE!
THIS IS YOUR FORUM!
You're posting here!
Support your forum like you always have and do!
DONATE TONIGHT - SIMPLY PUNCH HERE!
Posted on 10/08/2011 3:52:52 PM PDT by NYer
Good! At my age, my breasts need support!
I’m sorry about both your mother and your sister. I hope you take care of yourself.
Remember you didn’t break your vow before God and man, your husband did. For some reason it saddens me. I really wish you the best and hope other things in your life have made up for it.
Having children is not for everyone but to want them and not be able to have them because somebody lied to you, is wrong.
That’s my sermon for the day.:)
Big and bouncy or small and sexy... They all deserve our attention!!
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
This is an extremely important article, as it says, "the elephant in the room", bigger than a gorilla. Breast cancer has increased 40% since abortion became forcibly legal in every state; additional risk factors are hormanal contraceptives and putting off or having no children. If the medical profession was not cowardly, this would be explain clearly to every woman in every doctor's office.
Regarding breast feeding, I read long ago a study done in a SE Asian community wherein the inhabitants had a (very odd!!) custom of mothers feeding the babies only on one side, can't remember which side. When they got breast cancer, it was generally in the breast not used for feeding infants.
And you still want more children? If you are better than his ex he might be a bit more willing to help you with this.
I don’t buy this for a minute. Women that never give birth at a higher risk for breast cancer?? BS. Some women can never have kids, and will not likely face breast cancer. And to suggest women are only good for giving birth, and to mandate women give birth, is insulting, tyrannical and evil.
There is more to life than having kids, many couples and singles are perfectly content and healthy without kids. What is good for some, is not necessarily the case for others.
They are immune to criticism on two fronts: sympathy and sex.
Who doesn't want to be nice to breasts?
This is a scam par excellence.
just press the button once and wait.
Amen to that!
“I don’t buy this for a minute. Women that never give birth at a higher risk for breast cancer?? BS. Some women can never have kids, and will not likely face breast cancer. And to suggest women are only good for giving birth, and to mandate women give birth, is insulting, tyrannical and evil.
There is more to life than having kids, many couples and singles are perfectly content and healthy without kids. What is good for some, is not necessarily the case for others.”
Facts are facts. Because you don’t want it to be so, doesn’t change it. Can’t we just be rational here? There are already plenty of places on the net that cater to emotion driven arguments.
Who said these are facts? I see no reliable outside sources...
Not relying on emotion, I’m calling it as I rationally see it: this is an agenda-driven propaganda piece, with no substantial convincing evidence.
What you write suggests to me that I’m pretty well doomed, because I had several miscarriages. Yes, we did eventually have two children, both of whom were breast-fed, but it didn’t happen ‘til I was over thirty.
Where in corn bread hell have you been son.....?
Bump. Aye, lassie.
Actually, it is true. There was an in depth study done of Catholic nuns that showed the correlation.
However, I agree with you that this is not reason enough to reproduce. I know many people who cannot or chose not to have children.
Does it up their risk of getting breast cancer? Yes.
But then smoking ups one's chances of getting lung cancer and people do it all the time.
The abortion/breast cancer link has always brought to mind one question for me: What about women who've had miscarriages? It's pretty common. Does that up their chances of getting breast cancer as well?
Here's a link to the nun/cancer link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/oct/06/cancer.women
Not relying on emotion, I’m calling it as I rationally see it: this is an agenda-driven propaganda piece, with no substantial convincing evidence.
You obviously didn't read the article, and follow all the links. Its full of "reliable outside sources."
I had lunch last week with the author of the Mayo Clinic study linked in the article. The Mayo Clinic doesn't publish junk science or agenda driven propaganda.
All of this data is fully documented in the medical literature. The Pill and abortion both increase the risk of breast cancer. Taking the pill or having an abortion prior to first full term birth both dramatically increase breast cancer risks.
And to suggest women are only good for giving birth, and to mandate women give birth, is insulting, tyrannical and evil.,
Who said that ?!? That's simple emotion driven propaganda in response to the well documented science in this article. While the article itself is demonstrably not guilty of that which you allege, your posts are insulting, tyrannical and evil.
True or not,(I don’t trust so-called “studies”, having kids should be up to the individuals or married couples. It is not mandatory or even necessary for loving, committed and healthy marriages.
Many people cannot have kids, many people should not have kids. That does make them any less valuable.
But, BTOS, I still don’t believe a word of this without hard physical proof. And no, so-called “studies” or testimonies do not count.
Here's the way I look at it:
There are links that are being ignored and not being explored.
There is a link with abortions and breast cancer
There is a link with not bearing children and breast cancer
There is a link with HRT and breast cancer
There is a link with long-term hormonal birth control use and breast cancer
Instead of getting mad that there are links, why don't we explore those links and come up with better methods of HRT and birth control?
IMHO, denying the links because it's not PC to do so (because of people who're reacting to these links like you are right now) is the crime.
By burying our heads in the sand because we don't like the facts, we're increasing many women's odds of getting a disease. We're not looking into alternative hormonal therapies that could stop this process from getting started. If we're brave enough to accept the truth, we can fix the problem.
And no, I don't mean by making every woman a 'slave' to pregnancy, childbirth and nursing.
Imagine if there were a shot that a woman could get after a miscarriage that would reduce her BC risk. Or a better form of birth control that wouldn't increase her risk.
But we can't go there because people will hysterically scream 'misogyny!' at the mere mention of the possible links.
And so women die.
Thanks for 'defending' us from science. Us little girls can't possibly manage the knowledge of an increased risk. Apparently our little heads just can't handle it.
Abortion is murder, ditto with the pill. I cannot under any circumstances support killing innocent babies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.