Is late motherhood causing a breast cancer epidemic?

MailOnline ^ | 15th of July, 2010 | John Naish

[redangus]

Abortions, especially at a young age, is also a huge contributor to breast cancer. The fact that the breast starts to produce pregnancy hormones meant to produce changes in breast tissue and then the pregnancy is abruptly ended causes huge problems. But you won’t here this from the LSM anytime soon. This one reason I refuse to support the SGK group. They refuse to admit the connection.

[redangus]

There is considerable concern about this in the Lesbian community. They are afflicted with the “nun’s” disease, but for different reasons.

[vis a vis]

...had 4 children by the time she was 28-—5 in all. Never smoked, maintained an ideal weight, was very active.

Thanks for the info;I know that no one gets out of here alive. Hers may have been environmentally caused. There are some things that we may never know. I put this in that category.

[CholeraJoe]

Science has proved a linke between abortions (especially for someone who has had multiple abortions) and breast cancer. Won’t hear that in the MSM.

You won't find it in the medical scientific literature either, because it hasn't been proven. In fact scientific studies show no link.

ACOG Committee Opinion No. 434: induced abortion and breast cancer risk. - Committee on Gynecologic Practice - Obstet Gynecol - 01-JUN-2009; 113(6): 1417-8 (MEDLINE® is the source for the citation and abstract of this record )

Abstract:

The Relationship between induced abortion and the subsequent development of breast cancer has been the subject of a substantial amount of epidemiologic study. Early studies of the relationship between prior induced abortion and breast cancer risk were methodologically flawed. More rigorous recent studies demonstrate no causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk.

Citation: ACOG Committee Opinion No. 434: induced abortion and breast cancer risk.

ACOG is the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

[Red6]

Humans if they ever did “evolve” stopped doing so many years ago. We are what we are, and woman has been having babies when they were 14 as far back as history has been written or pictured.

What has changed is our society. Today the norm is to wait until your 30s to get married, and 40s to have ones first kid for some of the career professionals out there. Just some years past I remember the advice was to have kids before the age of 35 in order to minimize Downs as well as a slew of other genetic diseases and complications in pregnancy.

May it be the voluntary choice to be childless, the age at which child bearing begins, the lack of a father in the lives of many children as they are raised, the extreme sexual over exposure of our children and adults which has created a society where everyone thinks they need to live the life of a porn star, programmed deliveries where on a specific date and time the baby will be delivered, a lack of breast feeding, high abortion rates, optional C-sections out of convenience........ the entire perception of having children, the process and the social norms/standards are actually quite odd if you look at them in perspective of what humans were actually “designed” for.

The career professional woman today doesn't have time to breast feed nor deal with this inconvenience. So with a single pill after birth she fixes this problem. Just like she fixes the problem of an unwanted pregnancy, or waits to have kids until she's actually at an age where an entire slew of genetic and personal health issues are more likely.......

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

I am shocked that evidence regarding this has been available since 1700, and I never heard a word of this in the ‘70s or ‘80s.

Like usual, the Ministry of Truth only passes along to us when They want us to know.

[bereanway]

This is a politically charged issue and there are many in the medical community who disagree with that citation. Below is a quote taken from the Abortion/Breast Cancer Link:

“Seventy-two epidemiological studies have been conducted since 1957; and 80% of these studies have shown that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer independently of the effect of delaying the birth of a first child. These epidemiological studies establish a correlation between abortion and increased breast cancer risk. Most of the recent epidemiological studies focus exclusively on the effect of the independent link, not the known risk of delaying the birth of a first child.”

That’s a lot of studies (well over 50) to be methodologically flawed. That sort of discrediting in one fell swoop sounds very suspicious and makes one wonder if there’s not another agenda at work.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

When 16th Century nuns display high rates of breast cancer, it means that the primary factor is not birth control, hormone therapy, chemicals, transfats, cell phones or abortions.

[Amberdawn]

Eating a much fattier diet doesn’t help either-Girls who do (and that’s most in the Western world) start their menses earlier and so are exposed to much more estrogen over a lifetime than those on a poorer (less fatty) diet.