Replies

““Komen For the Cure” was exposed years ago”

It’s easy to find on the internet . . . Komen Foundation donated over $74 million to Planned Predators just two years ago . . . and yet, in almost every office all over the country, hapless and stupid people go around looking for sponsors for these idiot walks to collect money for the ba$tards.

The fact that abortions themselves INCREASE the likelihood of breast cancer, completely escapes them. The NFL has their players wearing pink and there’s pink everywhere. Incredible that this formerly legitimate organization has sold themselves out to the bloody-handed devils of Planned Predators. And then, Planned Predators wants GOVERNMENT TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR A HALF-BILLION DOLLAR ORGANIZATION!

What are we, STUPID OR WHAT?

The fact that abortions themselves INCREASE the likelihood of breast cancer, completely escapes them.

Oh, I think that's why they created, or at least co-opted, the Komen false frone operation in the first place. As the medical evidence that women who abort their children face a significantly higher risk of developing breast cancer, Planned Parenthood began to get nervous. They tried frantic measures to discredit the medical data at first, but they also came up with the (almost diabolical) idea of "breast cancer charity" that would actually be able to suck up money generated by the disease they have a hand in inflicting... and funneling the donations to themselves!

The fact that abortions themselves INCREASE the likelihood of breast cancer, completely escapes them.

You're missing the essential point of the research into abortions and breast cancer: on one end of the continuum, women who never give birth and who never nurse who also had early menarche and late menopause are the most susceptible to developing breast cancer (not including those who are genetically predisposed); on the other end on the continuum, women who have had the most children the earliest in life who breast feed them the longest, and who entered menarche latest and menopause earliest are the least likely to develop breast cancer. Every woman is at some point along that continuum. An interruption of a pregnancy, by whatever means, surgically induced abortion, miscarriage, premature birth, moves a woman's risk of developing breast cancer toward that of the nulliparous woman and away from the other end of the continuum.

A surgically-induced abortion does not increase her risk of breast cancer beyond that of the nulliparous woman, it just reduces the benefits that pregnancy, late onset of menarche, and early onset of menopause confer. Having only one child instead of three or four children will move a women in the direction of the nulliparous woman as far as risk of breast cancer is concerned. The fewer cycles of ovulation a woman goes through in her life is that which confers the lowered risk of breast cancer. That which increases the number of ovulations--or, seen another way, keeps her from conditions in which ovulations have ceased--such as pregnancy--increases her risk of breast cancer.