No abortion is
More likely, the wealthier women are getting abortions. 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.
MSM LISTEN:
Abortion increases a womens chances at getting cancer.
You can't cheat Natural Law without consequences, both temporal and eternal.
How late is late ?
Nope, it all the babies they slaughter by abortion before deciding not to kill the baby.
I’ve never had a baby and have been told I am at high risk. Last month, while waiting to have a mammogram, I noticed a little chart on the wall listing risks for breast cancer. Never having had a child, or having one’s first child after age 30, was on the list.
http://www.ehealthmd.com/library/breastcancer/brc_causes.html
Breast Cancer
What Causes Breast Cancer?
What Causes Breast Cancer?
The exact cause or causes of breast cancer remain unknown. Yet scientists have identified a number of risk factors that increase a person’s chance of getting this disease. Certain risk factors, such as age, are beyond our control; whereas others, like drinking habits, can be modified.
Age
The risk of breast cancer increases with age. For example, annual breast cancer rates are 8-fold higher in women who are 50 years old, in comparison with women who are 30. Most breast cancers (about 80%) develop in women over the age of 50. In one age group (40 to 45 years), breast cancer is ranked first among all causes of death in women. Breast cancer is uncommon in women younger than 35, with the exception of those who have a family history of the disease.
Previous Breast Cancer
If a woman has already had breast cancer, she has a greater chance of developing a new cancer in the other breast. Such a new, or ‘second,’ cancer arises from a completely different location and should not be confused with a cancer that has recurred (come back) or metastasized (spread) from another site. The likelihood of a new cancer increases by 0.5% to 0.7% each year after the original diagnosis. After 20 years, a woman has a 10% to 15% chance of developing a new breast cancer.
A previous diagnosis of lobular carcinoma in situ (a localized tumor) is associated with a 10% to 30% greater breast cancer risk, and a previous diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ is associated with a 30% to 50% greater risk.
Family History Of Breast Cancer
Approximately 85% of women with breast cancer do NOT report a history of breast cancer within their families. Of the remaining 15%, about one-third appear to have a genetic abnormality. The risk of breast cancer is about two times higher among women who have a first-degree relative (mother, sister, or daughter) with this disease. The risk is increased 4- to 5-fold if the relative’s cancer was found before menopause (the end of menstruation) and involved both breasts. The risk also is increased if breast cancer occurs in several family generations.
In addition, an increased risk of breast cancer has been found in families with other inherited disorders, such as ataxia telangiectasia (a progressive disease of the motor system) and Li-Fraumeni syndrome.
Genetic Mutations
About 5% to 10% of all breast cancers are hereditary. Scientists have identified certain genetic mutations (permanent changes in genetic material) that place people at increased risk of breast cancer. To date, the genes that have been most studied include BRCA1 and BRCA2. Some American women - many of whom are descendants of Ashkenazi Jews from Eastern and Central Europe - have an inherited BRCA1 mutation. Each will have up to a 90% lifetime risk of developing breast cancer. More than half will be diagnosed with breast cancer by age 50. In some BRCA1 families, there is a likelihood of developing both breast and ovarian cancers. The BRCA2 genetic mutation also is prevalent among families with Ashkenazi backgrounds.
In addition, many other genes may be associated with breast cancer, including the genes named p53, AT, the GADD repair group, the RB suppressor gene, and the HER-2/neu oncogene (a gene that contributes to cancer). Some of these genes directly influence breast cancer risk, whereas others are involved in the general processes of cancer growth and metastasis.
Hormones
Breast cancer risk is increased in women with the longest known exposures to sex hormones, particularly estrogen (female sex hormone). Therefore, breast cancer risk is increased in women who have a history of
•early first menstrual period (before age 12),
•late menopause (end of menstruation),
•no pregnancies,
•late pregnancy (after age 30), or use of
•birth control pills (the ‘Pill;’ oral contraceptives - ‘OCs’).
It should be mentioned that the Pill’s exact hazards are difficult to assess, since risk apparently disappears in women who have not used oral contraceptives for more than 10 years.
________________________________________________
Try to explain male breast cancer with the late motherhood theory - and some of the others.
Nobody will dare mention the elephant in the room....hormones.....birth control pills, hormone replacement and abortion as causative factors. They are too sacred to dare mention. All the factors in the article may be true but the wide spread use of hormones is a huge commonality in Western women.
“...and I do not see feminists trying to get the word out...”
And Greens don’t want to get the word out because they fear rising populations. But one does not have to have a Ma Kettle-sized family to...
1. Have a child before age 28.
2. Have at least two children.
3. Breastfeed each child for at least six months.
It is quite probable that having four children provides more protection than having two but we’ll soon see more data on this.
It’s probably a combination of little time spent nursing and abortion. You know, it’s almost as if God designed women to be fruitful and multiply.
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.
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.......
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.