Feminists dare to complain about breast cancer reporting bias?

Pro-abortion feminist journalist Miranda Spencer wrote a 2,600 word article for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting in February complaining that MSM does not spotlight factors contributing to the "epidemic" of breast cancer enough.

miranda spencer.jpgSpencer, who supports giving US taxpayer money to international abortion groups as well as the United Nations Population Fund, which helps the Chinese government coerce women to abort, had a lot of nerve, particularly by naming her piece, "Overlooking evidence."

Of course Spencer refuses to acknowledge the obvious and proven link between abortion and breast cancer and instead blamed this "leading cause of death in women in their late 30s to early 50s" on the fact that The New York Times, et al, do not talk enough about the hazards of flame retardant clothing....

The willful ignorance is staggering. Admitting that "reproductive history," i.e., delaying child-bearing or having no children at all, is a factor, Spencer and her ilk absurdly deny that stopping a pregnancy, which delays child-bearing or having any children at all, can possibly be implicated.

Spencer also complained that when MSM does broach the topic of breast cancer, it dares to place at least partial responsibility on the victim, this while admitting "hormone-disrupting substances" and "carcinogens" can be problematic. The prime culprit in both those cases is hormonal birth control pills, which not only disrupt natural hormonal regulation of a woman's body, they slowly poison a woman with low-dose carcinogenic estrogen over the course of years.

I don't know what Spencer and feminists expect. MSM must think it best to avoid the topic of breast cancer altogether rather than tow the line and ignore or lie about the most obvious 2 factors causing the breast cancer "epidemic."

Click to enlarge...

fair 2.jpg


Comments:

Amen. Jill!

Posted by: brooke bida at March 12, 2009 6:34 AM


Breast cancer's most avoidable risk factor: abortion!

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com

Posted by: Leslie Hanks at March 12, 2009 6:44 AM


Actually, breast cancer gets reported on quite a lot. Not enough, goes though, I think, into helping women with breast cancer. As for abortion, whether it raises cancer risks or not, it is still raising the risk of death for a child, so it is pointless to argue that abortion is "safe" and couldn't possibly hurt women or take advantage of women. Medical groups and universities are divided on this issue since many find that it does raise risk and many find that it doesn't.

P.S. This is coming from feminists who swear that American women have it terrible (there's such a thing as a Saudi Arabian woman?), that there's no such thing as men's cancers which are usually the overlooked cancers (granted their risk seems to be lower than breast cancer, but they still matter and still ought to get help from their fellow humans), that abortion will make you princess of a giant mountain with lots of slaves at your command, and that anti-abortion movements- comprised heavily of women- want nothing more than to enslave women. Bum bum bum. Well, I have always admired the Feminists for Life. They're quite lovely.

Posted by: Vannah at March 12, 2009 7:10 AM


Someone should do a study on the rate of Breast Cancer in China and India, where abortion is rampant. I'd be curious to see the results.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at March 12, 2009 8:38 AM


In addition to high abortion rates Liz, China and India also have severe air and water pollution.

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 9:13 AM


Breast Cancer is not the leading cause of death for women! Heart disease is.

Posted by: Nicole at March 12, 2009 9:15 AM


True, Nicole, but Breast Cancer is probably the leading cause of Cancer deaths in women.


Posted by: LizFromNebraska at March 12, 2009 9:19 AM


Breast Cancer is not the leading cause of death for women! Heart disease is. I'd like to what is in my power to avoid both if I can

Posted by: Pansy Moss at March 12, 2009 9:49 AM


Nicole, the article says it's the leading cause of death for women 30-50.

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 10:05 AM


We are overlooking the motivation behind the behaviors that increase breast cancer risk.

The greatest controllable risk for breast cancer is the age of the mother at the time her first child is born.

Lowest risk for cancer is first birth at or before age 20.

However our society says young women are too silly to be moms at that age and that other pursuits are more important. Women are indoctrinated to believe they are not competent to manage their own families until they are older despite thousands of years of evidence to the contrary.

Parents are only willing to help support young people who are going to college. Parents believe education is so important, Parents are not so willing to spend $$ to enable their children to marry younger so they can start their families sooner because they see family as a burden instead of a joy. Education should serve the family not the other way around.

There is extreme social pressure on women to increase their breast cancer risk by 100% to 300% by delaying childbirth untill after age 20, by any means necessary.

Posted by: hippie at March 12, 2009 10:38 AM


"Lowest risk for cancer is first birth at or before age 20.
However our society says young women are too silly to be moms at that age and that other pursuits are more important."

Hippie, how about young women deciding on their own that other pursuits are more important to them than have babies in their teens? Not all of them want that right away. Some do and that's okay. Give women credit.

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 10:43 AM


I also want to say that pollution is a real threat to us all. The FDA and USDA have lists of known carcinogens, among them, estrogen.

9 of the 10 worst polluters US are pharmaceutical companies because the agents are so toxic and carcinogenic, unlike CO2 that gets so much attention.

One of my fears is that if the gov't takes over more businesses, they will be more lax on pollution. If businesses pollute and endanger the public, then we go to the gov't to police the businesses and make them change or pay fines, regulate etc. However, when the gov't harms people, it doesn't police itself very well.

For example when the Exxon Valdez caused a big spill in Alaska, the gov't and media were all over it.

When soldiers returning from Viet Nam the first Gulf War had some strange illnesses, the media responded, but the gov't was slow and stubborn.

Finally, when the Tennessee Valley Authority ( under the oversight of US Congress ) didn't maintain their sludge pools properly, thousands of acres were flooded with toxic sludge polluting a river and the ground water with dangerous levels of arsenic. Barbara Boxer is the head of the committee responsible for oversight of TVA. She apologized. I'm sure Exxon exec's would have been delighted to get off so easy. Do you see the media reporting environmentalists calling for Barbara's resignation for the extreme pollution and devastation of the environment caused by her negligence, or the negligence of TVA?

Now, clearly the second two examples impacted human beings directly in terms of danger to health due to chemical exposure but the situation in Alaska is the one that got the outrage and action because it was a company at fault not the gov't.

It is better to have the gov't regulate companies than itself. Gov't is willing and able to go after companies but it is not so willing to go after its own agencies or agents regardless of the damage they inflict on the public.

Posted by: hippie at March 12, 2009 11:13 AM



Hippie, how about young women deciding on their own that other pursuits are more important to them than have babies in their teens? Not all of them want that right away. Some do and that's okay. Give women credit.
Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 10:43 AM

This ignores the fact that women are indoctrinated to believe they want these careers.

For example, my mother won a full four year college scholarship but her dad wouldn't let her go. She got married at 17 and had two kids in 3 years. She was indoctrinated and pressured into in it. I don't think that is right. Not then, and not now.

Meanwhile I personally know someone whose parents insisted she go to college. She had 2 abortions so she could stay in school. She finally graduated with a 2.0. She was indoctrinated and pressured into it. She worked as a clerk for less than a year, got married and had three kids. Duh, she never wanted a career.

Plenty of women over at gnxp.com comment that despite getting PhD's in science, they quit for what they call "baby lust".

The important thing is to let young women know that delaying motherhood is the single greatest breast cancer risk and the risk is greater than all other controllable risks. That should be the first rattle out of the box in sex ed. class.

Equally important is for society to value motherhood as much as achievement in any other career. Successful mothers are just as important to society as success in any other career.

Pick up any parenting magazine, and read their reader surveys and you will find the majority of working moms would rather be home.

We shouldn't villify either career women nor career mothers. We should inform all women of the real breast cancer risks.

Posted by: hippie at March 12, 2009 11:27 AM


Hippie,

Strictly biologically speaking, I tend to agree that motherhood was meant for younger women. I had waaayyyy more energy and patience to deal with sleepless nights and toddlers in my early 20s than I do in my mid-thirties.

Posted by: Pansy Moss at March 12, 2009 11:44 AM


Personally I haven't noticed a drop in energy as I've aged (yet!) but I have noticed an increase in patience.... which my kids and husband benefit from!

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 12:43 PM


When I became a mother at the tender age of 15 years old I knew right then and there that it was time to 'put on my big girl panties'. For the first couple of years I regretted my choice to become a mother, while it didn't effect the caring I gave to my son it did cause some resentment and depression issues. The main reason I felt this way was because of older moms shunning me away from play groups, doctors not taking me seriously, etc all because of my age. I'd have women ask me how old my little brother was or doctors telling me that I need a note from my mom to bring my little brother into the doctors. I remember one time my son started breathing funny and passing out and as he was being taken to the hospital they handed my mom the paperwork to sign for my son's care and told her how lucky she was to have such a great babysitter. My heart would sink eveytime those things would happen.
If women choose to become parents young, and sometimes its not by choice, it is hard for a younger mom to survive the stigma people put onto you. Embracing motherhood should be acceptable at any age (I'm not advocating having babies when your just a baby yourself) if you have a degree or not. I do have 1/2 a degree lol, but I wanted to be mommy to by son's first and then when they are older I'll go back to school to finish my RN degree.
I love being a mom and I wouldn't change it for the life of me. At this point I'm not sure if I would want to have children past age 25 anyway. When I'm 37 years old my youngest son will be 18. . . my husband and I are selling the house and going on a VERY long vacation lol....

Posted by: AK Krystal at March 12, 2009 2:57 PM


I am so glad Krystal that you gave life to your son!! I am also sorry about how you have been treated!! How frustrating for you!

I think that your experience is one of the arguments of PC. We don't want young girls to suffer the stigma of becoming a mom at 15. Best abort that baby then.

Posted by: Carla at March 12, 2009 3:17 PM


Oh yea Carla I so know what your talking about. The stigma is a hard thing to get over, that is why I started a group up here (because in AK there is a high number of young moms without proper support networks) for mothers who are under 25 or who have had children at a young age. It is amazing the number of women who participate in the playgroups, group bonding classes and local events who are young moms and are proud of it.
I'm trying to get featured in the local newspaper to get the word out about us young moms who are making a difference in the local community. If we can show other young moms that the stigma is nothing to be worried about then we can and will eventully show the rest of the world just what young mothers are made of. The women I have in my group are some of the strongest, kindest & smartest ladies I know.
Advice for any 'younger' mom or for a woman who was once a young mom, surrounding yourself around other ladies who are positive will help you in your journey of motherhood.

Posted by: AK Krystal at March 12, 2009 3:26 PM


How wonderful of you to do, Krystal!! Any support or help would encourage a young mother to know she is not alone and can lean on others who have "been there."

YOU GO GIRL!!

Posted by: Carla at March 12, 2009 3:28 PM


I'll keep going Carla trust me!
My pregnany was a blessing but it took me a few years to figure that one out. I think all parents are not perfect and it will always take a village to raise a child. My kids have so many 'aunts', 'uncles', 'grandparents' that we've adopted over the years that I think they get confused. lol. But that is the beauty of people who love children and love to be apart of other childrens lives. Even one kind word to a mom instead of a dirty look, a rude comment or just a blank stare will surely make their year.
In my group last months focus was on commen kindness. I taught my group how to handle others in a manner that they think back to your words next time their in that situation. Kill 'em with kindness!

Posted by: AK Krystal at March 12, 2009 3:35 PM


AK Krystal,

I went through all the same business you talked about. I was a mother at 20...even when we started homeschooling, as nice as the other mothers were, they were ten years older than us. Although I have to say, I felt PP depression later, but again, I think because I was more physically exhausted. I got the little brother, or more succinctly "are you the nanny?" remarks. Now let me tell you how things have changed, my 15-year old must be the only girl who takes their baby siblings out for walks for the fun of it because people always ask if she is her daughter.

Astitis,

I have patience with some things, but none with others. Although, perhaps it is not patience, it might be the ability to block out noise. I do't know. Like back then, like AK Krystal, I had such a respect for the whole "putting on my big girl shoes" idea, and the energy to go with it, I would stay up all night with a newborn and not complain. Now I need every bit of sleep I can muster, I need coffee, I need outlets, and I think I earned the right to whine about being tired-so I do darn it!

Posted by: Pansy Moss at March 12, 2009 3:45 PM


Good job Krystal... I was a pretty young mom, too, got pregnant with Alison before I turned 20, and I've always looked younger, so that didn't help. When Alison was 7 I took her to the store so she could buy my dad a birthday card. The clerk behind the counter told her how lucky she was to have a big sister who would take her shopping. She gave him a funny look and said, "What are you talking about? That's my MOM!"

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 12, 2009 3:46 PM


Aww, that's such a cute story Elisabeth.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 12, 2009 3:50 PM


Funny! I'll bet that clerks mind was boggling for a few hours.
I was in the store with my 6 year old son, well he was throwing a fit and at that point in the day I needed i had enough so I acted like I was going to walk away. You know get him freaked out a little.
Well, turned my back for a moment and he was gone! He went up to the customer service help desk and asked for his mommy. When I responded to the call pretty much in tears myself the lady said she was going to be reporting my mom to CPS because my mother shouldn't have allowed me to bring my little brother into the store by myself. I needed supervision myself according to this lady. I was 19 years old at this point!
I'll never act like I'm leaving my son in the store again, he didn't care that he was lost but I just about had a heart attack.
When I told this woman I was the mom she laughed at me and said 'prove it'. She ended up calling my mom and my mom had to come down to 'verify' for this lady that I was my son's mom. This lady said if I left the store with MY SON that she would be calling the cops for kidnapping!

Posted by: AK Krystal at March 12, 2009 4:17 PM


Oh sad. This is the same "legislate one group's morals" argument that comes out regarding STDs and AIDs prevention. Instead of a science-based discussion of the factual causes, we blather into personal stories, anecdotal evidence, and attempts to impose draconian morality on a group (usually women or gays or the young). Let's find a cure for breast cancer (and STDs and AIDs) that works based on science and fact, not limit personal choice to appease the morally high-handed. For example, it is proven that condoms prevent the spread of STDs and AIDs; abstinence does not. Scientific facts are infallible; humans are not.

Posted by: sara at March 12, 2009 4:36 PM


Krystal,
Kill em with kindness works here too!! :)

Posted by: Carla at March 12, 2009 4:37 PM


Hi Sara.

"Scientific facts are infallible; humans are not. "

By your own statement, you are fallible, so without evidence, I see no reason to believe that science is infallible based on the words of a fallible human (I'm assuming you're human). Now, what is science based on? It's based on a scientific method (there are many of them) which is invented by humans. So how can fallible humans come up with an infallible methodology? True, being fallible does not mean everything we do is wrong, but how do you come up with an argument, which must also be infallible, to show that our scientific method is infallible?

Finally, I'm not sure how abstaining from sex does not prevent the spread of AIDS. I have a good friend who has been abstinent her whole life, and I don't think she is contributing to the spread of AIDS or STDs. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 12, 2009 4:47 PM


You wrote: "the obvious and proven link between abortion and breast cancer"

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Posted by: SingingZombie at March 12, 2009 4:48 PM


I can relate to Elizabeth, Pansy and Krystal. I'm 24, but I still often get asked when I'm going to graduate high school. (The tattoos and piercings and blonde on black hair probably doesn't help me look very "mature", I confess.) When I'm out with my 10 month old son, I get so many dirty looks from people who probably assume I'm a teenage mom or a young single mom. People often ask "Is he yours?!" in equal parts shock and disgust.

Even if I was a very young mother, what is gained by people acting this way? This repulsion towards motherhood, especially if it's deemed as premature, only breeds negativity. Regardless of what they assume my situation to be, this is my child and children should be welcomed into our society with open arms. I sometimes suspect that our pro-abortion culture has contributed to this snobbery towards young families. Children are viewed as abstract commodites at our disposal, to the point that born children are conditionally accepted based on the perceived favorability of their circumstances. And what sort of primitive cave woman would embrace motherhood over an advanced degree or career or that 2 week backpacking trip in Europe? I get the impression that motherhood before 30 is often considered lower class. Smart, independent women are supposed to get a formal education and enjoy a career before considering motherhood - deviating from this notion is met with accusations of being irresponsible or wasting one's potential (I'm speaking from experience).

How can it be considered an enlightened notion that natural childbirth is some sort of medical problem to be harnessed and manipulated in order to forge a woman's proper place in society? Isn't feminism about accepting women for who they are? How is it possible to truly accept women while denying that motherhood is a natural aspect of a woman's life?

Posted by: Janette at March 12, 2009 5:12 PM


Sara: "For example, it is proven that condoms prevent the spread of STDs and AIDs; abstinence does not."

Umm, are you serious? One can abstain from sexual intercourse and still contract a sexually trasmitted disease? Interesting.

Posted by: Janette at March 12, 2009 5:16 PM


Krystal,

That reminds me of another story (this is a total thread hijack).When I was a little girl, people often thought my mother was my nanny because she looked obviously black and I came out much lighter (I'm the baby in the picture: http://tinyurl.com/df69y6 ). One time when I was about 3, I was begging for chips and my mother was sternly telling me no, and a lady lectured her about about allowing my mother to make these decisions.

Posted by: Pansy Moss at March 12, 2009 5:52 PM


Sara: "For example, it is proven that condoms prevent the spread of STDs and AIDs; abstinence does not."

Umm, are you serious? One can abstain from sexual intercourse and still contract a sexually trasmitted disease? Interesting.
Posted by: Janette at March 12, 2009 5:16 PM

Quite a few times I have seen pro-choicers confuse "abstinence" with "no birth control". Big difference.

Posted by: Pansy Moss at March 12, 2009 5:55 PM


Abstinence education, folks. Teaching kids abstinence doesn't prevent them from having sex, getting pregnant, or contracting STDs.

If you're going to ignore science and facts, well all to ya! Base your own decisions on your own belief sturcture. I'll leave mine to facts.

As to the friend who has been abstinent all her life, again, how sad.

Sex is not bad. Sex does not have one purpose, procreation.

Posted by: sara at March 12, 2009 6:05 PM


Janette,
Awesome comment!! :)

Posted by: Carla at March 12, 2009 6:09 PM


Sara,
Who said sex is bad?

As to the friend that has been abstinent all of her life...awesome!! I know it must be hard to believe that people don't die from lack of sex. That's a fact.

Posted by: Carla at March 12, 2009 6:11 PM


Sara,

You keep saying we ignore science. What scientific facts are we ignoring? We believe that sex outside of marriage is immoral. That is a question of ethics, not science. So in wishing those not married to be abstinent, what is the scientific fact we are ignoring?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 12, 2009 6:12 PM


Pansy, what an adorable picture! It's so 70's. :)

My kids look like little clones of my husband. I often feel like the nanny (or mistriss!) when I'm out with all of them.

Sara, why is absinance sad?

I think that most people benefit from marriage and sexuality, but I don't think it's "sad" if someone's path is not marriage.

I agree that sex has more purposes than simply procreation, but I also believe that we can not pretend that the procreative nature of sexual relations does not exist.

Sex is a reproductive act, albiet an enjoyable one. To pretend that it has no reproductive properties is disingenous at best.

Posted by: Lauren at March 12, 2009 6:20 PM


Quite a few times I have seen pro-choicers confuse "abstinence" with "no birth control". Big difference.

Posted by: Pansy Moss at March 12, 2009 5:55 PM

Maybe it's because it leads to it !

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 6:31 PM


Oh, I love that picture! It's so sweet.

Posted by: Vannah at March 12, 2009 7:16 PM


Abstinence leads to no birth control? Well, I suppose if one were abstinent they would not need birth control....

Seriously... you guys need to watch your use of language. Abstinence is not having something. I may choose to abstain from having chocolate and peanut butter ice cream tonight. Therefore I would not have chocolate and peanut butter ice cream tonight!

When one abstains from sex, they don't have sex, therefore they are not going to need birth control, will not get pregnant, will not get STDs.... it's only when they STOP abstaining that there are problems!

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 12, 2009 8:08 PM


Oh and yes... what a CUTE picture! I love it.

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 12, 2009 8:09 PM


it's only when they STOP abstaining that there are problems!

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 12, 2009 8:08 PM

exactly

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 8:10 PM


The scientific fact you are ignoring is: teaching abstinence-only does NOT prevent kids from having sex.

Posted by: SlipperyOne at March 12, 2009 8:57 PM


"The scientific fact you are ignoring is: teaching abstinence-only does NOT prevent kids from having sex. "

Suppose that's correct. Why should science trump morality?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 12, 2009 9:02 PM


Janette,
I love that comment. Thank you for sharing your insights.
Cute picture too! Very groovy!

I have three young boys, they all kind of look a like but they are all very different. I love the questions like "Do all three have the same dad?" or when I'm on the phone with a DR office, "Is there a Dad you would like to list or should be just leave that blank?"
I'm pretty sure if I rack my mind that I'll come up with more lines that have been given to me. But I though that a feminist was someone who embraced being a woman, and I know that I can do what no other woman in this world can do and that is having my own babies. Other women can have their babies but can never have mine.
Come on feminists, where is your support for woman?
Are women who CHOOSE to have their babies less of a woman than those who CHOOSE to abort them?

Posted by: AK Krystal at March 12, 2009 9:03 PM


Come to think of it, if that is true, it is a fact of anthropology or sociology, which is a soft-science at best.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 12, 2009 9:07 PM


Not that there is anything wrong with anthropology or sociology, but that they are not hard sciences that you can demand the kind of rigor from sciences like biology and chemistry etc.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 12, 2009 9:17 PM


BobbyBambino, science should trump morality because even if you get the morality right, if you get the science wrong, your efforts to act morally will fail, and often, will accomplish the opposite of your moral goals.

For instance, the Palin family had their morality but got the science wrong. Result: an increase in single teen motherhood.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." --Richard Feynman.

Posted by: SlipperyOne at March 12, 2009 10:25 PM


Will there be flaming keyboards in hell?

Posted by: HisMan at March 12, 2009 10:41 PM


HisMan, wait a few years and you will find out.

Posted by: SingingZombie at March 12, 2009 11:01 PM


Gee SingingZombie, your assertion contradicts just about everything God says about those who will be in hell and those who won't.

Those who murdered babies, encouraged the nmurder of babies, and supported the murder of babies will cerainly be there if they don't repent of their evil ways.

This too SZ, my God says if I trust in his Son despite my sin, I'll be in Heaven.

Just where do you stand?

Posted by: HisMan at March 12, 2009 11:40 PM


HisMan, the books you think are from your God are written and manufactured by humans.

On another subject look at this: "Dentist Mark Anderson Convicted of Molesting Patients
WOODLAND, CA -- After eight days of deliberation, a Yolo County jury found Dr. Mark Anderson guilty of sexual battery on 10 of his female patients. Dr. Anderson was declared guilty on 12 counts, eleven of them felonies. "

Clearly we need to ban dentistry. Let's start a cavities'-rights movement!

Posted by: SingingZombie at March 13, 2009 12:03 AM


What one dentist does ought not to come back at all dentists, but abortionists make a living off of inhuman practices on children. It is not as though every single abortionist is a salacious patient-molester, but it is the job of the abortionist to destroy and to legally possess another. By bringing up felonies that they commit on the job, one is pointing out the irony in abortionists calling anti-abortion activists "misogynists." Dentists do not incorporate propaganda, do not slaughter, do not lie, and do not make a living off of inhuman practices dubbed as "women's liberation." I mean this in respect, but anyone who honestly argues that one transgression in a medical field is the same as an entire movement based off of intolerance and degradation is willfully ignorant and there's no point in arguing the matter further.

Posted by: Vannah at March 13, 2009 7:28 AM


Very telling, that someone with the screen name of "SingingZombie" would think the way he/she does.
A zombie is "the walking dead".
Clearly this individual is spiritually dead.

Posted by: Mike at March 13, 2009 11:01 AM


Mike,

I was thinking intelectually, based on his flawed reasoning.

Posted by: Oliver at March 13, 2009 2:14 PM


That, too.

Posted by: Mike at March 14, 2009 1:58 AM


"HisMan, the books you think are from your God are written and manufactured by humans.....

Posted by: SingingZombie at March 13, 2009 12:03 AM"

Walking Dead:

I just can't let your blasphemy of God's Word go unanswered. After all, the Word is the sword of the Spirit and in the name of Jesus I shred to pieces all the lies you beleive and so heinously speak about the Bible.

2 Timothy 3:15-17 "15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Posted by: HisMan at March 14, 2009 2:28 AM


"BobbyBambino, science should trump morality because even if you get the morality right, if you get the science wrong, your efforts to act morally will fail, and often, will accomplish the opposite of your moral goals.

For instance, the Palin family had their morality but got the science wrong. Result: an increase in single teen motherhood.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." --Richard Feynman.

Posted by: SlipperyOne at March 12, 2009 10:25 PM"

Gobbledegokerhymanerianasberdashian?

What in the world are you saying?

No the Palin daughter chose to do wrong despite her parents telling her the truth. Then her parents forgave her and she got married, turning something bad into something good.

Your science says "have sex anyway or kill the baby, and hide the sin"? What a crock.

God tells us to not do many things because He loves us. He knows we will be hurt if we do them. We all disobey.

Are you saying that God should encourage us to go ahead and sin? That's actually blasphemous and a revelation that you really don't understand the nature of God. God never compromises His values, nor should we.

Posted by: HisMan at March 14, 2009 2:47 AM


HisMAn, I wanted to inform you that Bristol Palin is now a single mother. She isn't marrying Levi at the moment. No further details have been released.

Posted by: AK Krystal at March 15, 2009 12:34 AM


okay, what is the *science* behind the connection between abortion and breast cancer? I understand the connection between hormonal contraceptives but last time I checked the *connection* between abortion and breast cancer was coincidental...most women who get abortions are lower income and therefore lower income women are usually more exposed to environmental toxins. But no study has confirmed a causal link between abortion and BC, unlike endocrine-disrupting chemicals that mimic estrogen and in laboratory tests make cancer cells proliferate wildly (as well as damage those fetuses you all care about so much if the woman is pregnant).

Posted by: Laura at March 16, 2009 8:54 PM


Hello Jill and Jill's readers. You may be interested in my debunking and deconstruction of this post, now at RH Reality Check:

http://tinyurl.com/daxvvg

Posted by: Miranda C Spencer at April 13, 2009 12:50 PM