Replies

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.

“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.

<>I don’t buy this for a minute. Women that never give birth at a higher risk for breast cancer?? BS.

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

And to suggest women are only good for giving birth, and to mandate women give birth, is insulting, tyrannical and evil.

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.

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’?