Posted on 10/08/2011 3:52:52 PM PDT by NYer
What about women who can’t have kids??? How to help them, then??
And one more freakin’ thing:
If a woman was educated and made aware of her increased risks, MAYBE she’d be intelligent enough to take precautions - like getting screened every year after 30 or 35 - instead of waiting until she was 40 or blowing it off (like my mother does) because ‘it doesn’t run in our family’.
Keeping women ignorant and stupid is the sexist attitude. What? We ‘can’t handle the truth’?
Well IGNORING the facts because it's not PC isn't helping them at all. MAYBE if we could get past that, we could apply some SCIENCE to the problem and get these women started on cycles that mimic pregnancy or otherwise prevent the problem.
But we can't do that because people don't want to do the research because they don't LIKE the social implications.
PC BS IS SEXIST AND KILLS WOMEN.
Yes. I just went ALL CAPS on your butt! LOL!
I’m sorry, but this issue does make me mad. When PC BS stops science from making progress and people DIE, it p*$$es me off.
No need to get personal. In fact, I agree with your latest post.
I never suggested to hide the truth. I’m still not totally convinced of this, that’s all I’m saying.
I am not a misoygnist, as there are women in my life I love and care about. Otherwise, this issue/article would be of no concern to me.
I agree, all PC junk science is crap and harmful. Any solution to help those at risk, but I would like one that doesn’t have anything to with pregnancy, or imitating it, or pressuring a woman to have children.
Society should not play favorites or favoritism. Putting more value on one group over another(in this case people with kids over people without.
Well I am a woman and what I want is knowledge and choices.
I can’t have those things if the facts make people feel so bad that they want to keep knowledge buried.
Women are tougher than we look. We have the intelligence and the strength to examine a situation and make educated, informed decisions.
And I think that you’re way wrong if you think that anyone here would imply that women without children are of lesser value than those with. If anything, people are upset that childless women are being allowed to die due to political correctness and ignorance.
They’re saying that these women ARE valued and we’re doing them a disservice by hiding the truth from them.
Give them the truth and allow them to make the choice as to how best manage that knowledge. A woman may chose to have children after all or she may chose to be more careful with her screenings.
But the choice should be *hers* and she can’t make an informed choice without the proper information. Hiding information that might make her uncomfortable is demeaning and quite possibly deadly.
We’re tough. We can handle it.
It’s not insulting, tyrannical, or evil. Read what’s being said...the hormonal changes across the whole process of a full term pregnancy provide protective effects, which also happen to reverse a sharp SPIKE in risk caused by the earliest stages.
Madmaximus is either a kook libertarian or regular leftist. MadM says:
“having kids should be up to the individuals or married couples.”
Did the article state that couples should be forced to have children? No? Then what is your point? You hate the idea of anyone shining the light of truth that abortion and birth control pills and preventing conception can have harmful effects? What, does this spoil the “party on no holds barred” hedonistic life you advocate?
Actually the two sites I was on said that a miscarriage does NOT have the same future breat cancer risks an induced abortion.
Apparently this is because when the miscarriage occurs in the first trimester (most do occur in the first trimester) it means that the embryo was somehow damaged and not signaling properly for the estrogen levels to rise so they don’t - and the pregnancy ends. Somehow it is the developing embryo/placenta sysyem that sends out the signals for the proper hormonal changes to occur. It is a beautiful process that only God could orchestrate. If the miscarriage occurs later than the cells will have differentiated.
So don’t worry - God takes care of this natural process!!
meant breast cancer risks as an induced abortion.
Hi, LJ.
I am totally against abortion. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I am defintley not a libertarian or leftist. See my tagline and my previous posts.
I am all for anything that shows the evils of abortion and so-called “birth control.”
Agree absolutely.
This is an important issue to pro-lifers. There are plenty of credible studies linking abortion to breast cancer.
The left is hell-bent on ramming pro-abortion agenda down our children's throats and won't discuss the cancer link.
Whether you like it or not, and whether you choose to believe it or not, the link is there.
I agree. Infanticide(sugarcoated as “choice” and “abortion”)is a pure evil menace that needs to be halted. Any society that allows it, turns a blind eye to or tolerates it deserves nothing short of God’s wrath.
I was only concerned about the implications of all or any childless women being at higher risk of breast cancer.
Though, to be fair, there are many forms of cancer, with many risk factors and causes. Most males will likley never be at risk for breast cancer, however, there is prostate cancer, lung cancer, and many others.
So...when are we going to have a “raising awareness” about prostrate cancer? We already have the events where men run in high heels to “raise awareness” about breast cancer. Shouldn’t the ladies run around in jock straps to support finding a cure for prostrate cancer?
Agree. It’s a double standard, in today’s liberal PC world, men, esp white heterosexual men are not as important.
I detest all this pink stuff too, and especially how it pops up everywhere during football season in October.
I could not dislike this Goodell idiot any more.
Giving birth balances out that excess estrogen that is not mitigated when an abortion is performed early on. As far as breast feeding is concerned, I don't know how important that factor alone might be. My mother didn't breast feed her 8 children, and she never developed breast cancer, or cancer of any sort in her 84 years.
Nuns tend to develop breast cancer at higher rates, simply because their bodies have never gone through the mitigation process that occurs with childbirth.
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.