Race for the cure and ignore a cause
The Rocky Mountain News covered the story this way, along with festive pink pictures:
A river of pink flooded downtown Denver this morning as more than 60,000 people ran and walked in the 16th annual Komen Race for the Cure to support people affected by breast cancer.
That was the liberal half of the news. The other half of the news was that CO Right to Lifers wanting ignorant women to learn a significant but covered up cause of breast cancer – abortion – parked a Truth Truck along the parade route and also picketed with signs….
The other half of the news was that a man jumped out of the crowd and grabbed
Leslie Hanks’ signs and literature and tried to destroy them. The cops arrested him, slapped him in cuffs, and Leslie filed a complaint.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
‘I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to death your right to say it.’
I have heard many people utter those words, but I knew they would not even inconvienence
themselves to protect my right to free speech. Especially, if my speech was politically incorrect.
If the right to free speech is anything, it is the right to be offended.
I love the title Jill..
‘I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to death ..FOR.. your right to say it.
Actually, the my omission probably was a more correct representation of what people really mean when they speak those words.
We humans are stump stupid.
Please let all this just be a bad dream from which I can awaken.
I don’t buy any products with the pink ribbon if they mention Susan G. Komen on them, because I KNOW that they give $$$ to Planned Parenthood in the guise of “grants” but yet……we have no cure yet for Breast Cancer. If they’d use all the money raised for research and didn’t give any of it away to PP, then maybe I’d help out.
Why DO they give money to PP? For breast exams or something?? I mean, PP isn’t a research branch for breast cancer research so I’m not sure why they give them money. If anybody could clarify that would be great!
I **think** its for use for mammograms for low income women.
PPC, continue the personal attacks and you’ll be banned.
Jill, these are not “personal attacks”, they are FACTS. If the actions of the Scotts do not reflect your values, stop promoting them.
I support Ken & Joe Scott 10000% !!!!
Lol I bet you do Zeke.
Anyone wanting the facts about Ken Scott or Jo Scott can Google them, since the truth about them cannot be posted on this website. Start with last week’s article in Westword magazine, which links to prior articles about them.
PPC, you’re skewing facts, and I won’t tolerate it. Final warning. Drop it.
***Abortion/Breast Cancer Relationship Explained by Karen Malec***
60 Minute Interview (1-20-06)
In order to hear this program now you will need to go to this link..
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=995387
(go to 4th post and click on the link)
——
It’s a 60 minute interview. So if you don’t have the time to listen to all of it, I will let you know the important parts to listen. Here they are…
IMPORTANT SEGMENTS
10:00 (minutes into the program) Biology Explaining the Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer.
45:50 (minutes into the program) Please Explain the Biology on How Contraception Contributes to Breast Cancer?
They never tell the about the link between breast cancer and abortion because there isn’t one. It’s a lie. According to the best study done, in Denmark.
what’s wrong with Ken and Joe Scott? Seem like good people to me.
Why DO they give money to PP? For breast exams or something?? I mean, PP isn’t a research branch for breast cancer research so I’m not sure why they give them money. If anybody could clarify that would be great!
Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella’s Momma) at October 6, 2008 4:08 PM
I fully support Breast Cancer Research Research, but not for a company that gives money to Planned Parenthood!
I don’t have the links handy, but I believe there are personal ties between the bigwigs at Komen and Planned Parenthood. It has come up before. I’ll try to find it a bit later…
I was disappointed to find another product (Pillsbury Crescent Rolls) in my local grocery store with PINK packaging this weekend. I bought the store brand instead. I always make a point to tell the store manager that I refuse to buy the “pink products”. I truly think it makes a difference in what my local store carries.
The thing that annoys me is that Nintendo made a special Nintendo DS Lite that’s white with the pink ribbon and will donate around $100,000 from sales of these hand held video game systems to Susan G. Komen.
Why can’t they donate to another breast cancer awareness organization, one that actually wants to do prevention, research and find a cure.
They never tell the about the link between breast cancer and abortion because there isn’t one. It’s a lie.
Biological Explanation for the Link
The explanation for the independent link makes good biological sense. It remains unrefuted and unchallenged by scientists because it is physiologically correct.
A never-pregnant woman has a network of primitive, immature and cancer-vulnerable breast cells which make up her milk glands. It is only in the third trimester of pregnancy – after 32 weeks gestation – that her cells start to mature and are fashioned into milk producing tissue whose cells are cancer resistant.
When a woman becomes pregnant, her breasts enlarge. This occurs because a hormone called estradiol, a type of estrogen, causes both the normal and pre-cancerous cells in the breast to multiply terrifically. This process is called “proliferation.” By 7 to 8 weeks gestation, the estradiol level has increased by 500% over what it was at the time of conception.
If the pregnancy is carried to term, a second process called “differentiation” takes place. Differentiation is the shaping of cells into milk producing tissue. It shuts off the cell multiplication process. This takes place at approximately 32 weeks gestation.
If the pregnancy is aborted, the woman is left with more undifferentiated — and therefore cancer-vulnerable cells — than she had before she was pregnant. On the other hand, a full term pregnancy leaves a woman with more milk producing differentiated cells, which means that she has fewer cancer-vulnerable cells in her breasts than she did before the pregnancy.
In contrast, research has shown that most miscarriages do not raise breast cancer risk. This is due to a lack of estrogen overexposure. Miscarriages are frequently precipitated by a decline in the production of progesterone which is needed to maintain a pregnancy. Estrogen is made from progesterone, so the levels of each hormone rise and fall together during pregnancy.
For a thorough biological explanation of the abortion-breast cancer link, see this second website for the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, http://www.BCPInstitute.org and click on its online booklet, “Breast Cancer Risks and Prevention.”
Mike
check out the (US) National Breast Cancer website and try doing a search on abortion.
Nyet! Nothing. Nada. No results for your search term.
I absolutely REFUSE to give to breast cancer research in Canada because the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation absolutely does not accept abortion as a risk factor:
http://info.cancer.ca/E/CCE/CCEDetails.asp?redirect=1&id=185&site=Breast%20Cancer&lang=E&name=/CIS/E/CCE/HTML/10_185.html
scroll to the bottom of the page.
So Jo Scott got a divorce? If she is a Christian shouldn’t she have taken her marriage vows seriously? They say, “For better or for worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health till death do us part.” You say that in front of God. So he had a drug problem? She should have been at his side helping him, not run away the second it gets rough.
Jess,
You make it seem like she did something really bad like supporting abortion…
I’ve read about Ken Scott before. He and his group give mainstream pro-lifers a bad name by making us look like crazy extremeists.
A study of over 100,000 women reported by Web-MD years ago found no link between abortion and breast cancer. Yet you persist in this logic. Where is your facts, your studies? I’ve got mine.
http://women.webmd.com/news/20070423/abortion-and-breast-cancer-no-link
There was a Pro Abortion researcher that even found the link and couldn’t deny it. And please read the information that Mike posted.
Use of contraception can also increase the risk, especially prolonged use.
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/abc.html
Eating meat causes all types of cancers. Cow milk causes breast cancer, that’s why I’m trying hard to cut it out!
http://www.milksucks.com/breast.asp
And here we have:
http://www.nih.gov/news/radio/may2006/05052006exercise.htm
Exercise moves estrogen through the breast quicker, reducing the risk.
Luckly I get about three hours of exercise a day thanks to college athletics. Hopefully that will cancel out what I drink in milk!
I feel that this would interest many of you: http://www.caringconsumer.com/charities_bcf.asp
Jess,
for you, a 20 oz t-bone steak…yum!
Jasper
Show her something else for once. Maybe a grilled salmon fillet. Or tuna salad on rye. Or a veggie wrap.
And since when does drinking MILK cause Cancer? I drink SKIM MILK cause I don’t want to drink Soy (Ewwwwwwwwww).
Lol Jasper, how about we put this ad in teen magazines?
“Abortion: Lose pounds fast!”
http://www.cosmos-liturgy-sex.com/pics/aborted_baby.jpg
Sorry kid but Mama’s got a prom dress to fit into!
Lol guys, think about THAT the next time you say, “Honey did you lose weight?”
P.S. Jasper you obviously know you’re doing something wrong since you totally freak out when I mention the word, “vegetarian.” Guilty much?
“Lol Jasper, how about we put this ad in teen magazines?”
sounds good to me!
“Show her something else for once. Maybe a grilled salmon fillet. Or tuna salad on rye. Or a veggie wrap.”
But we have to get some protein in that girl!
You should be ashamed to be associated with scumbags like this. It takes a special kind of asshole to picket a breast cancer fundraiser and imply that they’ve all had abortions. What do you have against cancer patients? What did they do to you?
What next? Soldier’s funerals?
one of myfriends who was a dairy farmer told me that he would NEVER drink anything less than homo milk because the 2% and 1% are the washings from the tanks at the dairy….
I don’t know if this is true but we drink only homo
He and his family drinks the milk from their own cows (I’m not recommending this BTW!)
Lol Jasper I get 18 grams of protein alone in my peanut butter sandwich. Everything I eat is like protein enhanced.
And unfortunatly I do still eat milk and eggs. But if I didn’t I would still have options!
Grains Legumes Seeds & Nuts Vegetables
Barley Beans Sesame Seeds Leafy Greens
Corn Meal Lentils Sunflower Seeds Broccoli
Oats Peas Walnuts
Rice Peanuts Cashews
Pasta Soy Products Other Nuts
Whole Grain Breads
What’s homo milk?
Patricia I should buy a cow. When I was little my Mom always told me I needed to I always drank so much milk. She can live on the campus green during the day and on the couch in my apartment at night. She will give me milk, I will give her baths and hay.
picketing this event doesn’t mean that they are implying these women had abortions
BC pills also cause breast cancer and how many women take the pill for years and years…..
Women have a right to know that abortions and the pill put them at risk
Reality… who said that they all had abortions? The signs said that abortions cause a 40% increase in any individual woman’s risk of contracting breast cancer. If they are trying to find a cure and reduce the rate of breast cancer, don’t you think that would be an important thing to know?
I’m a pediatric nurse. We have to discuss the risks of any procedure, no matter how slim, with the patient (or in our case, the patient’s parents). My family has a high rate of breast cancer. If (which I never would, but for the sake of argument) I was going to have an abortion that would cause a further rise in my personal risk for breast cancer, don’t you think I have the right to know that?
Do abortion clinics even take a personal and family medical history? Do they know anything about these women’s risk for cancer? Hemorrhage? Do they do lab studies to check clotting factors? Anemia? Heck, what would even be all of the appropriate studies to do if someone actually wanted to make this a medically “safe” procedure for the mother? Jill, maybe you can help me out here…. somehow…. somehow, I don’t think that abortion clinics are performing these basic medical safeguards.
LL-
I would assume she means homogenized.
I will agree with Elisabeth that I don’t think women are fully informed of what an abortion is, what the procedure is like, what the baby is like at the time. It’s sad that I hear so many stories of doctors overlooking womens medical concerns. Not just with abortion but in many other cases.
http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/bgr/lowres/bgrn1106l.jpg
Homo milk?
“P.S. Jasper you obviously know you’re doing something wrong since you totally freak out when I mention the word, “vegetarian.” Guilty much?”
guilty? why would I feel guilty? It’s not like I’m pro-choice or anything.
You’re pro-killing and torturing helpless animals for days, weeks, months and even years so you can eat a “delicious” steak. You know animals have thoughts and feelings, yet you disreguard that for your own comfort.
LL – it’s not gay milk!
It is homogenized milk. lol
Jess,
I’m not for torturing animals at all or killing more than we need to eat.
I guess ignorance is bliss huh Jasper?
Go here if you dare:
http://getactive.peta.org/campaign/iowa_pigfarm_abuse2
Care to meet your meat?
Elizabeth (Gabriella’s Momma),
Here are a couple of links I promised you. They aren’t as easy to come by on Google as I remember in the past. Jill may have more.
http://www.operationoutcry.org/articles_view.asp?articleid=14751&columnid=2073
The Planned Parenthood Connection: The Komen Foundation’s Race For Abortion by Adam McManus – Friday, April 01, 2005
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
http://www.rnclife.org/blog/2007/10/susan-g-komen-awards-72-grants-to.html
Susan G. Komen for the Cure awards 72 grants to Planned Parenthood in 2000-2005 period
* Nancy Brinker, Komen Founder, was listed as an advisory board member in the 2002 annual report of Planned Parenthood of North Texas, the fifth largest Planned Parenthood affiliate in the nation.
Jasper, I don’t win if you stop eating meat. You win.
I’m sorry, the information provided in Mike’s link was fundamentally biased because they have a stake in only providing information that proves their point, unlike the information from Web MD that is neutral in its viewpoint. Part of understanding science is understanding the biases and stakeholders in the study in this case the stakeholder was not the women being tested but rather the so-called doctors who lead the study. I don’t think they would publish something that contradicts their stated mission.
Patricia,
That’s what I thought, but the milk I drink is 2% and homogenized. Your post made it sound like it had to be one or the other. I’m confused!
have thoughts and feelings? We aren’t killing DOLPHINS, Jess. They are intelligent creatures. I love Dolphins. Watched the travel channel last night and Samantha Brown was in Mexico and swam with them. It was cool.
Animals don’t have souls or free will. Not like humans.
I’ve actually started to drink lactose free skim milk sometimes. I don’t think I could ever drink Soy milk cause there isn’t a fat free version.
BTW, the pro choice (not pro abortion) researcher’s name is Janet Dahling. Look up her findings.
“Animals don’t have souls or free will. Not like humans.”
Prove it.
“have thoughts and feelings? We aren’t killing DOLPHINS, Jess.”
So why do you think dolphins have more thoughts or feelings then say a pig? Have you ever seen a pig that wasn’t cooked? They have a better memory then most toddlers. And are we killing things based on how intelligent they are? So would it be better to abort a child with Down Syndrome then a healthy one?
Elizabeth (G’s Momma),
One more on PP Austin’s site currently:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/newsroom/local-press-releases/austin-affiliate-susan-g-komen-cure-provides-funding-breast-cancer-screenings-planned-parenthoo-22249.htm
Austin Affiliate of Susan G. Komen for the Cure Provides Funding for Breast Cancer Screenings at Planned Parenthood
Source: Planned Parenthood of the Texas Capital Region
Project targets low risk women ages 18-34
Contacts
Sarah J. Wheat
Office: 276-8063
Published: 05.28.08
They never tell the about the link between breast cancer and abortion because there isn’t one. It’s a lie.
Biological Explanation for the Link
The explanation for the independent link makes good biological sense. It remains unrefuted and unchallenged by scientists because it is physiologically correct.
A never-pregnant woman has a network of primitive, immature and cancer-vulnerable breast cells which make up her milk glands. It is only in the third trimester of pregnancy – after 32 weeks gestation – that her cells start to mature and are fashioned into milk producing tissue whose cells are cancer resistant.
When a woman becomes pregnant, her breasts enlarge. This occurs because a hormone called estradiol, a type of estrogen, causes both the normal and pre-cancerous cells in the breast to multiply terrifically. This process is called “proliferation.” By 7 to 8 weeks gestation, the estradiol level has increased by 500% over what it was at the time of conception.
If the pregnancy is carried to term, a second process called “differentiation” takes place. Differentiation is the shaping of cells into milk producing tissue. It shuts off the cell multiplication process. This takes place at approximately 32 weeks gestation.
If the pregnancy is aborted, the woman is left with more undifferentiated — and therefore cancer-vulnerable cells — than she had before she was pregnant. On the other hand, a full term pregnancy leaves a woman with more milk producing differentiated cells, which means that she has fewer cancer-vulnerable cells in her breasts than she did before the pregnancy.
In contrast, research has shown that most miscarriages do not raise breast cancer risk. This is due to a lack of estrogen overexposure. Miscarriages are frequently precipitated by a decline in the production of progesterone which is needed to maintain a pregnancy. Estrogen is made from progesterone, so the levels of each hormone rise and fall together during pregnancy.
For a thorough biological explanation of the abortion-breast cancer link, see this second website for the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, http://www.BCPInstitute.org and click on its online booklet, “Breast Cancer Risks and Prevention.”
Mike
Posted by: Mike at October 6, 2008 6:45 PM
…………………….
The conclusion derived from this would be that breast feeding after sucessful gestation can help avoid breast cancer. But if you would like to be dramaticaly misleading you could say that bottle feeding causes breast cancer. Miscarriage causes breast cancer. Virginity causes breast cancer. Sterility causes breast cancer.
Now explain why men develop breast cancer. I’ll wait.
picketing this event doesn’t mean that they are implying these women had abortions
BC pills also cause breast cancer and how many women take the pill for years and years…..
Women have a right to know that abortions and the pill put them at risk
Posted by: Patricia at October 6, 2008 8:29 PM
………………………..
Child birth causes cervical cancer. The more births, the more likely you are to develop it. Women have the right to know that giving birth carries tremendous health risks. Get the word out Patricia. Being so concerned with women’s health and all.
Jess I think you’re taking this animals have feelings and thoughts way too far.
I think you’re taking this fetuses have thought and feelings thing a little too far Liz. What do you really care? You were already born.
Shouldn’t we error on the side of life?
A long-time member of an organization fighting breast cancer has stepped down, criticizing the group’s donations to Planned Parenthood as inconsistent.
Eve Sanchez Silver was a charter member of the Susan G. Komen Foundation’s National Hispanic/Latina Advisory Council — at least, she was until September 20, when she stepped down.
“I don’t believe that the Komen Foundation can uphold and support and affirm life with one hand, and then give money to an organization that is responsible for killing people on the other.”
She was upset to learn the foundation gave $475,000 to Planned Parenthood state affiliates.
Rebecca Garcia, vice president of health sciences for the Komen Foundation, said, in all, $38 million went to community grants last year.
“Our grants are restricted just to breast health education, screening and treatment services,” Garcia said. “In a lot of rural and urban areas, Planned Parenthood is sometimes the only source of free or low cost women’s health screening services for the specific age group, for the age group of women between 40 and 50.”
But Silver rejected those arguments.
“I just don’t see how in the same building you can have breast services in one room, and abortions in the other and think that that’s all right,” Silver said.
She said other worthy organizations were denied grants because the money went instead to the nation’s largest abortion provider.
Silver also points out that numerous studies indicate a possible link between abortion and breast cancer — a link the Komen Foundation does not acknowledge. She said she wants the people who run in the foundation’s “Race for the Cure” to know where some of that money is going.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1233197/posts
Why do I care? Sheesh, Jess. I care because I am an Aunt to 6 beautiful children! I care because almost 50,000,000 (million) children have died because they were inconvenient and unwanted. I care because we have a social security crisis and we have killed a generation’s workforce that would be pumping money into the economy. I care because these babies are HUMAN BEINGS and have NO VOICE.
We have lost future doctors, nurses, teachers, lawyers, researchers, vets, marine biologists, actresses and actors, writers, etc. Yes, maybe even some Animal Rights people (but probably more of the type of ones that want to save endangered animals like red pandas, Giant Pandas, Gorillas and chimps and manatees).
People who think animals should have the same rights as humans and who at the same time support abortion make me want to puke.
Child birth causes cervical cancer. The more births, the more likely you are to develop it. Women have the right to know that giving birth carries tremendous health risks. Get the word out Patricia. Being so concerned with women’s health and all.
Posted by: Sally at October 6, 2008 9:34 PM
———————————————
Not strictly true. There is an increased risk for those with multiple full term pregnancies (not the childbirth itself…. even if you have c-sections the risk is still there) but the research seems to show that is because women who have multiple pregnancies have had multiple opportunities to have been exposed to HPV (which will not be a concern for those who have only one partner who also has no other partners, aka, fidelity… I know, what an archaic custom!) and that pregnant women may have a lower immune response to HPV than otherwise… so it is actually an HPV risk, not a childbirth risk.
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_2X_What_are_the_risk_factors_for_cervical_cancer_8.asp
Actually, indiscriminate sex that exposes you to HPV, oral contraceptives (which some feel enables them to have indiscriminate sex), and smoking are the highest risk factors for cervical cancer, in addition other risk factors include a family history of cervical cancer, a lousy diet, and being the daughter of a woman who took DES.
It is believed Obama is an “illegal alien”
http://www.obamacrimes.com/
Jasper,
I saw this on a tee shirt, “Rise, Kill, Eat.”
Acts 10:11-15 And he saw the sky opened and something like a great sheet lowered by the four corners, descending to the earth.It contained all kinds of quadrupeds and wild beasts and creeping things of the earth and birds of the air.And there came a voice to him, saying, Rise up, Peter, kill and eat.
But Peter said, No, by no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common and unhallowed or [ceremonially] unclean.
And the voice came to him again a second time, What God has cleansed and pronounced clean, do not you defile and profane by regarding and calling common and unhallowed or unclean.
AMP
THIS ISSUE MUST GET OUT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!
Please Spread This Far and Wide!!!!
It is believed Obama is an “illegal alien”!!!!!
http://www.obamacrimes.com/
Obama is NOT QUALIFIED to be US President!!!!
1 Tim 2:15
15 But women shall be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.
NASB
http://www.obamacrimes.com/
This is a very real and pending Issue.
It Must be Spread Far and Wide!!!!
Knock it off, James. That is bull and you know it. Quit with this juvenile mudslinging. I bloody HATE this part of the elections!
Look Jess! Free-range cows! Mooo….
http://leahelaine.myphotoalbum.com/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album19&id=moooooo
On the contary, based on the present Federal lawsuit, its quite clear that Obama is hiding something and can’t produce his real birth certificate. The lawyer in the case obviously sees this and is relentlessly pursuing the matter.
Even if we raise animals for food, there’s absolutely no reason to make it a cruel or inhumane process. It is true that the AR extremists take things way too far, I won’t argue that. But I still wish that laws would be passed to ensure the animals we use for food ect aren’t abused in the process.(In many cases, the anti-abuse laws don’t cover livestock). I think it’s hard to deny that even animals that aren’t that intelligent still feel basic pain and fear and don’t deserve mistreatment.
PS getting back to the topic at hand, I’m also annoyed by the whole pink ribbon thing being linked to PP and refusing to acknowledge the link.
MM, definitely agree with you about animals. I love meat but those animals don’t deserve to be mistreated. It’s just sick.
re: Liz from Nebraska – actually we haven’t lost as many professionals and geniuses as you would think. You see, if the poor are targeted for abortion as you allege and if the programs that help the poor get a good education are dwindiling well, we haven’t lost much. What you loose when you take away the right to choose is the right to make a rational decision based on how much society has invested in your future. Which, in America, if you’re poor and\or a minority, isn’t actually all that much. Would you raise taxes or redirect funds to help a poor neighborhood? Would George Bush\ John McCain? Nope. All they do is apply unfunded mandates like No Child Left Behind. Given a government that doesn’t give a rip, why should any pregnant poor mother. If they have enough vigor in them to fight the odds against them – more power to ’em – but I’m not going to deny a person a rational option simply because I don’t think they should do it.
Yo,
You cannot RATIONALIZE the killing of millions of innocent babies.
Nice try.
http://www.obamacrimes.com
According to the outstanding Federal Lawsuit, it is quite clear the Obama is hiding something very very critical to the outcome of this election and he can’t produce his birth certificate. The lawyer in the case obviously see this and is relentlessly pursuing this matter.
Please everyone…..spread this issue far and wide. Voters need to know about it. Inform all republicians, send it to Sean Hannity, inform radio and the newspapers.
The American people demand that Obama produce his real birth certificate to prove he is a natural born citizen of the US and is qualified to run as President.
lesforlife @ 9:56 PM
Wow.
Precisely because the cure can be sold for big $$$ while prevention can’t. Likewise, with a cure cause, people can wrap themselves into their good-deed cloaks, while ignoring the real problem. It’s a case of moral illusion.
Same thing goes for abortion.
Yet, with these moral illusionist causes, no one is counting the toll on the families of those who unwillingly die for that “cause”.
Thanks Leslie, for your work.
Taking the topic off animals and back to the fact that it IS Breast Cancer Awareness Month……I think despite our disagreements about the ABC link, we can **all** agree on one thing: Early Detection SAVES lives. If you have a family history, get yourself a mammogram. Do daily or weekly breast exams. You don’t want to be caught off guard.
Breast Cancer used to be an “older woman’s disease” that very few liked to talk about, but now we have women who are younger and younger that are being diagnosed with the disease.
Liz: i know sooo many women who have breast cancer. I find it simply amazing.
But among my close friends who have never used the pill and have had more than 3 children, there is no breast cancer, not even benign lumps.
I really wonder if the fact that so many women go years and years on the pill and have few if any babies – is the real problem. Then if they have had an abortion (according to stats about 43% of women have had one abortion ?) this would also be a significant factor.
One of my friends, her mother who is now 85, had breast cancer in her early 50’s. She had 9 children but was put on HRT when she had an emergency hysterectomy. She wasn’t on the HRT too long before she developed breast cancer. She has always maintained that the HRT caused her cancer (which was cured).
Leah: Knock it off, James. That is bull and you know it. Quit with this juvenile mudslinging. I bloody HATE this part of the elections!
Not to mention that it’s clearly counterproductive for the McCain campaign. Past a point, people start saying, “If this nut really believes this crazy stuff and wants McCain, then Obama has to be the right choice.”
The Campaign staff has been getting increasingly desperate, and Palin has been used as an “attack dog.”
“A majority of Americans now believe that Sarah Palin would be unqualified to serve as president if it became necessary, and her unfavorable rating has doubled,” CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said.
***Obama or Osama – Who Would Be the “Lessor of Two Evils?***
To date Osama was responsible for killing roughly 4,000 people on 9-11.
Obama is for killing the innocent unborn in the mother’s womb. To date there have been 50,463,000+ babies killed since 1973. Obama supports killing unborn innocent babies.
We also know Obama supports “Infanticide”. Infanticide is killing or letting babies die after they are born.
Therefore if you compare these numbers Osama is the “Lessor of Two Evils” when comparing Osama & Obama.
——-
Obama Supporters – Please give me reasons why Obama is better than Osama. So far you really have not given any reasons.
The only conclusion so far is…
Osama has killed 4,000+ Americans.
Obama’s policy’s has killed 50,463,000+ Americans and the number is still growing by roughly 4,000 people each day.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=4262922
Mike
It would appear that the fear-mongering liberals have been very successful in their portrayal of Sarah Palin. Too bad, because in the long run it is AMerica they are killing.
Sadly, they will only realize that years later when America slips into complete totalitarianism as their neighbour to the north is so slowly doing….
No free speech, no public debates, draconian human rights tribunals, forced homosexual sex education in schools, forced compliance of medical professionals to commit abortions meaning only scum of the earth people working in the medical profession, rampant abortion and homsexuality, and euthanasia.
Welcome to Canada, citizens of the future Obama-land.
We use to worry about the US swallowing up Canada. In reality it will be our culture (of death) which will absorb America and the two countries will be as one…..
***American Author of Anti-Obama Book Detained in Kenya***
Kenya doing Obama’s dirtywork?
—
NAIROBI, Kenya — The American author of a book critical of Barack Obama is being detained in Kenya while his immigration status is checked, a senior immigration official said Tuesday.
Jerome Corsi, who wrote “The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality,” was being held at immigration headquarters in Nairobi after police picked him up from his hotel Tuesday, said Carlos Maluta, a senior immigration official in charge of investigations.
“We still haven’t decided what to do with him,” Maluta told The Associated Press.
What a shame the latest polls show that America wants a baby murdering man for president.
It only shows that most people get their info from sound bites and MSM headlines.
Hence the false belief that the dems will turn the economy around! What a joke! We’re living the outcome of yet another failed social experiment. Give the poor loans, no matter if they can’t afford them, they deserve them!
And what’s really sad is that people put more value on their checkbooks then they do murder of children in the womb.
Doug
I thought we talked about polls not meaning much. Why do you keep posting them then?? :)
Sandi
What we are really witnessing is the beginning of the death of a culture – Western culture. I’m sure the Roman’s were not really aware that their culture was dying in 200 AD. Our arts are drowning in a sea of pornography, pure science is replaced by research driven by ideology rather than seeking the truth, we have fewer and fewer children and those that are born are designed to be the perfect sex (male) and perfect, period. The right to bodily autonomy is seen a the ultimate right, but only for those who have the correct ideology.
Patrician, you are afraid that “liberals” are going to turn America into a totalitarian dictatorship. But there is also a great risk that conservatives could turn us into a DIFFERENT kind of tyrannical government.
One in which all abortions are illegal, even in the case of rape and incest or even if a woman’s life were in danger.
And desperately poor women would use whatever means at home to try to terminate pregnancies, and die or be seriously harmed, and other women would go to back-alley abortionists who were unsanitary and incompetent, and die , while many doctors would secretly arrange for some women to get safe but illegal ones.
Well- to-do women would easily fly off to Europe, Canada or japan etc for safe, legal ones.
Those poor, unwanted children who WERE born would not get government subsidies so they could get good nutrition and education, live in decent housing, get medical care, etc.
What will happen? More poverty, unemployment and crime. More unwanted pregnancies for poor girls and young women, leading to an endless cycle of more human misery. And a HIGHER abortion rate because contraceptives are illegal.
More dropouts. More unemployment, more crime.
Non-christian will be second class citizens. Religion will be forced down our throats. Students will be forced to accept creationism as scientific fact.
Vital medical and csientific research will be thwarted because of irrational, obscurantist religious beliefs on the part of those in charge of the government.
That government will pry into our bedrooms. Take away rights from homosexuals and even persecute them.
If those in charge of “decency” in the government happen to disapprove of any film , television program, book, magazine or blog etc, they will censor and ban it.
The government will tell us what clothes women may wear in public, and arrest women for “immodest” dress.
Don’t pooh-pooh what I’m saying.
This is a definite risk. I’m not against Christianity per se, or any other religion. I just don’t want religion and religious extremists getting power in this country, or anywhere else.
Mike,
Interesting. That story is front page on Drudge too. Obama has his thugs everywhere looking out for him. They’re trying to steal votes in Ohio as well.
The times they are a changing.
Try to keep up.
Great article by Bill Donohue :
http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4646&Itemid=48
One in which all abortions are illegal, even in the case of rape and incest or even if a woman’s life were in danger.
YOu don’t punish the baby for the crime of the father. In this case the baby’s life is in danger. Ever heard of sacrificial love. BTW, many African women who are victims of rape do not support your position. They recognize the innocence of the baby. I am amazed at their ability to love under such terrible circumstances. We need to learn from these beautiful women.
Those poor, unwanted children who WERE born would not get government subsidies so they could get good nutrition and education, live in decent housing, get medical care, etc.
Many a pregnancy has started out unwanted Robert, only to end up very much wanted. This is not a reason to kill our children. The proper solution is to work for those subsidies and to work for good housing etc… Your way is a cop out.
What will happen? More poverty, unemployment and crime. More unwanted pregnancies for poor girls and young women, leading to an endless cycle of more human misery. And a HIGHER abortion rate because contraceptives are illegal.
At 1.5 million abortions per year and almost half of all women of reproductive age having abortions, I don’t see how things can get much worse unless you are in favour of China’s forced abortion laws. Contraception and abortion go together, or haven’t you noticed?
Non-christian will be second class citizens. Religion will be forced down our throats. Students will be forced to accept creationism as scientific fact.
Oh I get it. So it should be the practioners of the founding religions – the Christians who are charged with the hate crimes and who should lose their livlihood. Because that is what YOU are advocating Robert. Under Christianity there is at least the attempt to treat every person with dignity. Under secular humanism, only those who hold to the ideology have rights.
If those in charge of “decency” in the government happen to disapprove of any film , television program, book, magazine or blog etc, they will censor and ban it.
Yeah, well a little censorship might not be a bad thing Robert. I personally don’t want to watch TV in which the main characters lifestyle revolves around multiple hook-ups, and daily copulation. There is more to life than sex ya know, though you’d find it hard to believe watching TV or movies these days….
The government will tell us what clothes women may wear in public, and arrest women for “immodest” dress.
And ya know what, a little jail time for some of these trashy women in Hollywood might not be such a bad idea. I bet they’d wear more clothes in jail than they’ve worn since they were babies. We could also include the CEO’s of some of the women’s stores too. That might stop the marketing and selling of “hooker-wear” to our young girls. Today’s clothes are yesterdays street walker garb, from what I remember seeing.
I really think your statement is totally ridiculous unless of course you have a Muslim president…..
Your statements have been “pooh-poohed”.
Great article by Bill Donohue :
http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4646&Itemid=48
Posted by: Jasper at October 7, 2008 9:49 AM
That guy support David Duke doesn’t surprise me Jasper.
I just don’t care to see a woman’s cleavage poking out. I would like to see women dress like good role models, not like the ‘Desperate Housewives’ or ‘Girls next Door’.
Hal,
you missed the point of the article, it was a tongue-in-cheek reply to Nick Cafardi’s article, “I’m Catholic, Staunchly Anti-Abortion, and Support Obama.”
Jasper, I got it. My response was a tongue-in-cheek reply to the attacks on Cafardi.
oh, ok Hal. :)
I thought we talked about polls not meaning much. Why do you keep posting them then?? :)
Carla, 2% with 2 months to go – no biggie.
5% or 6% with 4 weeks to go – more significant, especially because it’s been a consistent trend since Palin and as the tone of McCain’s campaign has become more negative.
In no way am I saying anything here is a “done deal,” but I’ll tell you what – McCain’s handlers are sweating, bigtime.
Doug-
I’m not so sure, that kind of lead can evaporate instantly with 2 more debates (town-hall style no less) which can greatly affect those numbers. They are each essentially being challenged by the voters themselves, so we’ll see.
Definitely going to the debate party on my campus tonight though :)
Actually, Patricia, I think you proved his points. Christianity is quite obviously a sexist religion: just upthread someone posted about women only being sanctified through childbirth. What’s this about dignity now? I really don’t want a religion that forces me to be a broodmare being shoved into my life.
You agreed that “immodest” women should be in jail, agreed that women who are raped should be forced to continue the pregnancy (how’s that for a punishment), agreed with censorship, implied that contraception should be banned, and think that all pregnancies should end in a wanted child. If you’re what America’s coming to, I’d take Canada any day.
PPC speaks of truth. Please. PPC can’t handle the truth.
Here is the truth: http://briggsdna.wordpress.com/2008/03/24/what-every-woman-needs-to-know/
But I’m sure Jill has provided far more information on this issue on this blog.
My grandmother raised her kids during the time that women were told that “formula is best” so she only nursed her last baby. She also had a hysterectomy in her 40’s and went into early menopause. She was put on HRT.
She has breast cancer. Now, she is in her 80’s and at this point in life it isn’t viewed as a life-shortening disease, and she didn’t have to have chemo or anything just a daily estrogen blocking pill. I often wonder if the misadvice she got from her doctors contributed to her later developing breast cancer.
***More Than 100 Reasons to Vote Against Obama by Fr. Peter West***
http://frwest.blogspot.com/2008/09/more-than-100-reasons-to-vote-against.html
James and other people in tinfoil hats say: It is believed Obama is an “illegal alien”
http://www.obamacrimes.com/
Posted by: James at October 6, 2008 10:51PM
Adjust your hat and read this, James:
http://www.yestodemocracy.com/yes_to_democracy_no_to_pu/2008/08/wingnuts-away-.html
Patricia,
Advocate for modest dress and TV all you want, but if you aren’t serious about jailtime for these offenses I’d say be careful of what you say! Unless, if you are serious, then I have to question your judgement on those issues.
I believe in moderacy. Limited capitalism. So do most Americans. The far left (“communists”) and the far right (“fascists”) don’t rule America. At least, they shouldn’t. So I’m not too worried honestly.
What a shame the latest polls show that America wants a baby murdering man for president.
It only shows that most people get their info from sound bites and MSM headlines.
Hence the false belief that the dems will turn the economy around! What a joke! We’re living the outcome of yet another failed social experiment. Give the poor loans, no matter if they can’t afford them, they deserve them!
And what’s really sad is that people put more value on their checkbooks then they do murder of children in the womb.
Posted by: sandi at October 7, 2008 9:07 AM
How unpatriotic and anti-American you are with your lies and bashing of American values, Sandi. Are you a compatriot of Patricia’s perhaps? So ignorant and closed minded that you can’t understand that feeding, housing and clothing one’s BORN children can be an equally admirable and ethical concern for Americans?
She has breast cancer. Now, she is in her 80’s and at this point in life it isn’t viewed as a life-shortening disease, and she didn’t have to have chemo or anything just a daily estrogen blocking pill. I often wonder if the misadvice she got from her doctors contributed to her later developing breast cancer.
Posted by: lauren at October 7, 2008 10:57 AM
So why aren’t all those ABC’ers protesting the local grocery store for carrying formula? Or urging divesting of Nestle stock? You know, like they would if they were really interested in preventing breast cancer.
Hopefully, they will soon discover a way to duplicate the protective effects of breastfeeding without women having to go through with pregnancy. What a boon for women who can’t have children or who don’t want them!
Why would those undoubtedly otherwise-nice CO Right to Life people go out and systematically lie to thousands of women about the fictional abortion breast cancer link? That strikes me as an irresponsible, and somewhat un-Christian thing to do.
So why aren’t all those ABC’ers protesting the local grocery store for carrying formula? Or urging divesting of Nestle stock? You know, like they would if they were really interested in preventing breast cancer.
Posted by: phylosopher at October 7, 2008 11:43 AM
———————————————–
One of my certifications (in addition to being a pediatric RN) is as a breastfeeding counselor. I most certainly do point out to my counseling clients the link between breastfeeding and lowered risk of cancer as well as the risks that formula can pose to some children. I am also a staunch advocate of the Nestle boycott that has been going on for a very long time now. There are many people who recognize the horrific lows to which Nestle stooped in terms of their “marketing” of formula in third world countries where formula is neither readily available nor safe due to water conditions.
If you aren’t aware of the large numbers of people who support the Nestle boycott and who urge for greater advertising of the link between breastfeeding and lowered risk of breast cancer you’ve obviously had your head in the sand. Quick googling of the numerous websites on the topic would set your mind to ease that there are many people viewing these as major health crises.
Ray
READ the Facts that MIKE Posted earlier. It has to do with biology and the affect of a full term pregnancy on vulnerable cells.
Even a pro choice researcher found a link.
We can’t afford the trillion dollar bailout if Docs fessed up and admitted the breast cancer link. We even know how it is caused by an interupted pregnancy.
Ultimate in douchebaggery. This is an important message- but not one to be placed before those who mourn.
A sign reading pinkmoney.org or “Where does this money go?” is a classier tactic. Otherwise we look as if accusing sick women and their supporters of making their own bed.
Actually, Patricia, I think you proved his points. Christianity is quite obviously a sexist religion: just upthread someone posted about women only being sanctified through childbirth. What’s this about dignity now? I really don’t want a religion that forces me to be a broodmare being shoved into my life.
You agreed that “immodest” women should be in jail, agreed that women who are raped should be forced to continue the pregnancy (how’s that for a punishment), agreed with censorship, implied that contraception should be banned, and think that all pregnancies should end in a wanted child. If you’re what America’s coming to, I’d take Canada any day.
Posted by: HumanAbstract at October 7, 2008 10:41 AM
NO HA. Christianity is NOT a sexist religion. In fact it is THE ONLY religion that has viewed women as persons with dignity. Christ himself treated every single women he encountered with dignity that was way beyond what his culture afforded the women of his time. Muslim and Hindu certainly view women as objects of rights rather than subjects with rights, despite what the vehemently claim.
My comments on rape and abortion stand. I see no need to reiterate the obvious – you cannot kill an innocent child period. No matter what the circumstances.
And finally, yes, the people who have pornified our culture and who have encouraged women to dress like prostitutes by marketing sleaze do not liberate women – they have helped to enslave us further by making us into sexual objects. They have convinced women that they are sum of their body parts. These people (both men and women) are liars and thieves because they have told an untruth about the human body and because they have stolen the dignity of the body from women.
Ask any man on this board what he thinks when he sees a woman with half her breasts exposed and a tight skirt, jeans or whatever. Ask him if he thinks “Wow what a great person this lady is?” WHAT DOES he think HA? Surveys like this have been done on the average American male and the results aren’t printable.
Most religions aren’t sexist at the base. It is the corruption of pure messages which makes a religion seem sexist.
Jesus is the amazingest (yes, it’s a word). I have a drawing of him laughing. It is one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen. Some days he’s laughing because a child who said she wants to be Jesus when she grows up. Sometimes he’s laughing because he’s at a joyful wedding. Sometimes he’s laughing with a man telling him stories. Sometimes he’s just laughing because he’s happy.
He’s so cool!
Leah,
I have the same picture in our dining room! Amazingest, for sure! :)
Child birth causes cervical cancer. The more births, the more likely you are to develop it. Women have the right to know that giving birth carries tremendous health risks. Get the word out Patricia. Being so concerned with women’s health and all.
Posted by: Sally at October 6, 2008 9:34 PM
———————————————
Not strictly true. There is an increased risk for those with multiple full term pregnancies (not the childbirth itself…. even if you have c-sections the risk is still there) but the research seems to show that is because women who have multiple pregnancies have had multiple opportunities to have been exposed to HPV (which will not be a concern for those who have only one partner who also has no other partners, aka, fidelity… I know, what an archaic custom!) and that pregnant women may have a lower immune response to HPV than otherwise… so it is actually an HPV risk, not a childbirth risk.
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_2X_What_are_the_risk_factors_for_cervical_cancer_8.asp
Actually, indiscriminate sex that exposes you to HPV, oral contraceptives (which some feel enables them to have indiscriminate sex), and smoking are the highest risk factors for cervical cancer, in addition other risk factors include a family history of cervical cancer, a lousy diet, and being the daughter of a woman who took DES.
Posted by: Elisabeth at October 6, 2008 10:27 PM
…………………………………
But of course breast cancer is caused by having an abortion. But only if that abortion is desired rather than a ‘gift’ from God. Then there is no risk.
Cervical cancer could not possibly be caused by repeated trauma to the cervix through child birth. Nope. It has to be from having had sex. But only if you had sex without a permit from God. The cervix knows the difference. @@
I found a site that lists the risks for Cervical cancer, two of them are early age for sexual intercourse and multiple sex partners. Also certain strains of the HPV virus.
http://www.macdonaldwomenshospital.org/DisplayContent.aspx?PageID=61
@LizFromNebraska: And that would be a “duh”. It’s pretty well known that multiple sex partners can cause people to get HPV more frequently and subsequently get cervical cancer (as ~90% of all cervical cancers are caused by HPV) more frequently.
READ the Facts that MIKE Posted earlier
Words purporting to describe biological processes in lay terms are not necessarily facts, especially when they come from Karen Malec, or other ABC ax grinders such as Joel Brind, whose own meta-analysis (hasn’t done his own studies) shows a “barely statistically significant” increase in breast cancer rates.
There are no major studies that show an abortion breast cancer link, and not one major cancer organization, government or private, acknowledges such a link.
Okay, then, Ray. Look up Janet Dahling. She’s a PRO CHOICE researcher that found a link.
Liz, if you’re citing that source, cite it. Link it. Don’t just talk about it.
Christ treated women with dignity, true. But did Paul, when he talked about women being subservient to men? How about the reference to women and childbirth upthread? I’d consider that sexist.
I have every right to display my body as I see fit. When I dress “immodest,” I do it because I like looking at my body. I like the way my cleavage looks when it’s pushed up; I love how my legs look when I’m in a short skirt. I’m more than my body, but my body is a significant part of who I am. Why not enjoy it?
HA,
You have the right to display your body as you see fit, and we have a right to have an opinion about it. Appearance is everything in our society and what you put out there is what people will interpret you to be, so go for it, but don’t blame people for having their opinions about it.
People can have whatever opinion on it they like. The idea that making ‘immodest’ clothing illegal is acceptable is, however, ridiculous. But have whatever opinion you want, that does not bother me.
Um, you are enraged because of a false negative assumption you’ve made about the motives of the picketers.
“You should be ashamed to be associated with scumbags like this. It takes a special kind of asshole to picket a breast cancer fundraiser and imply that they’ve all had abortions. What do you have against cancer patients? What did they do to you? What next? Soldier’s funerals?”
Women have a right to know about the risks of abortion, inculding the increased risk of breast cancer. Hopefully some women will use the info to protect themselves by refusing to ‘choose’ to abort. There was no intent to harrass post-abortive women. The fact is a LOT of post-abortive women are the ones who are now trying to warn other women of abortions’ risks. And we won’t be silenced by YOUR shameful tactics.
By Mike’s explanation, by the way, virgins would also be at increased risk for breast cancer. So would the infertile, or those who choose not to have children. So, in addition to breast cancer rallies, how about you start picketing nunneries? Let all those women know that their sinful, sinful lifestyle of abstinence could cause their non-developed breast cells to cause them cancer.
So would the infertile, or those who choose not to have children.
This is absolutely true, but I don’t really know how one could figure out who is infertile or choosing not to have children.
Why would we picket nunneries? Is being a nun akin to having a medical procedure like an abortion? No? Then they aren’t required to know the risks that come with being single and never having kids. Medical procedures ARE. Wasn’t that the whole point of making abortion a medical procedure? So it was done in a clean environment with people who knew what they were doing and explained the RISKS to people?
Oh wait, we can’t tell people the risks with abortion because in that case it looks like we’re trying to influence their “choice.” Such hypocrisy. You poor pro-choice folks just want abortion to be looked at as a walk in the park with no problems at all, and anybody who challenges that better watch out.
How would you know who had an abortion, unless you asked them?
The thing about medical procedures is that the details of such are between a patient and a doctor: NOT a patient and a whole group of holier-than-thou picketers. The risks are the same as not having children or being infertile, or hell, being a male (undeveloped vestigial breast tissue and whatnot). They aren’t linked specifically with having an abortion: they’re linked generally to not having children.
What do you want the doctors to say? “Not having children could possibly increase your risk of breast cancer, but we’re not really sure, and just in case you should be popping out babies.”
Please stop calling Obama a “Baby Killer”. He is not, nor has he ever been responsible for a single abortion. Nor is any pro-choice politician. He does not “want” abortions to happen. He merely has the sense to realize that you cannot stop abortion by making it illegal. He is not responsible for the death of any living infant.
It’s not Obama’s or any democratic fault that abortions happen. They would, even if he were as rabidly anti-choice as that maniac Alan Keyes, also black. The thought of Keyes as president, and he IS running, makes me quake in my boots.
If anything, under Obama, abortions could DECLINE markedly.
If anything, under Obama, abortions could DECLINE markedly.
Eventually pro-aborts could GO EXTINCT because they are not replacing their own at replacement levels. Think about that.
I should have said:
“because they are not having babies at replacement levels.”
Yes Janet, because being pro-choice is an autosomal dominant genetic trait, passed along from parent to child through genetics. Obviously all children of pro-life parents will be pro-life, and all children of pro-choice parents will be pro-choice. And no pro-choice people have children. At all. It doesn’t happen. Clearly.
“Eventually pro-aborts could GO EXTINCT because they are not having babies at replacement levels. Think about that.”
Posted by: Janet
Yes Janet, because being pro-choice is an autosomal dominant genetic trait, passed along from parent to child through genetics. Obviously all children of pro-life parents will be pro-life, and all children of pro-choice parents will be pro-choice. And no pro-choice people have children. At all. It doesn’t happen. Clearly.
Posted by: HumanAbstract at October 8, 2008 11:38 AM
No, I’m saying being pro-choice is a result of faulty thinking (that children are not important) which is almost always passed down through (shrinking) generations.
So you must be saying that your survival through the generations as a pro-abort depends on half of your children growing up to be to be pro-life? Very interesting. If you only have one child per couple, do you counting on having pro-life offspring every other future generation to maintain your numbers? Isn’t the thought of having pro-lifers for descendants depressing for you?
Why is it passed down through generations? How? If this is something that “every person with higher morals know,” wouldn’t people instinctively know it?
No, I’m not at all saying that. Pro-choice people have children to, is what I’m saying. There’s no way that pro-choice individuals will abort themselves into extinction, which seems to be what you’re saying. During the early to mid 1800s, devises for abortion at home (generally herbs) was available for sale through Sears and other major retailers. No one cared. No one went extinct then.
I’m not having any children, so my descendants don’t actually trouble me much.
How would you know who had an abortion, unless you asked them?
What in the hell are you talking about? This would be between the patient and the doctor at the time of the procedure. It kind of is a waste AFTER to tell someone the possible risks of a procedure. Duh.
Either way, I don’t think the fear of breast cancer would do much in the swaying of one’s mind whether or not to have an abortion. Either you respect life or you don’t. It’s that simple. I didn’t not have an abortion so I wouldn’t get breast cancer, I didn’t have an abortion because I could never do that to my baby. It’s a little thing I like to call personal responsibility.
HA 1:07,
Why is it passed down through generations? How? If this is something that “every person with higher morals know,” wouldn’t people instinctively know it?
By “it” do you mean the fact that abortion is wrong? How is it passed down, you ask? Generally it’s done by parents who care about their children’s moral upbringing who will stress the fact. I don’t think children instinctively know moral behavior. It has to be taught.
Since the schools aren’t allowed to teach morals anymore, it’s been left to the parents alone.
I don’t know if I’d agree that pro-lifers have “higher morals” than PC’rs, if that’s what you are saying. Just different ones. I’m certainly not claiming any superiority.
I’m not having any children, so my descendants don’t actually trouble me much.
Don’t you see, this is my point exactly? Your line of decendants stops with you. No more pro-choicers to be born. (I’m not making a judgement, it’s just the fact of the matter.)
I’d love to chat more, but I really need to do some housework. Have a good one!
By Mike’s explanation, by the way, virgins would also be at increased risk for breast cancer. So would the infertile, or those who choose not to have children. So, in addition to breast cancer rallies, how about you start picketing nunneries? Let all those women know that their sinful, sinful lifestyle of abstinence could cause their non-developed breast cells to cause them cancer.
Posted by: HumanAbstract at October 8, 2008 8:58 AM
———————————————-
You’re being disingenious. While it is true there is a higher risk of breast cancer for those who have never had children, it is not along the same lines as for those who have conceived a child and not borne it to term.
That is because the differentiation that leads to the proliferation of cells occurs during pregnancy with the hormones from birth (and breastfeeding, which does the job even better, hence the lower rates of breast cancer among those who breastfed their children) turning the process off.
In an abortion, spontaneous or intentionally caused, those cells do not receive the message to “turn off”.
A far more cogent comparison would be between those who have miscarriages and those who have intentional abortions…. not between those who have abortions and those who choose abstinence for whatever reason.
But that would require a little intellectual honesty.
“We have lost future doctors, nurses, teachers, lawyers, researchers, vets, marine biologists, actresses and actors, writers, etc. Yes, maybe even some Animal Rights people (but probably more of the type of ones that want to save endangered animals like red pandas, Giant Pandas, Gorillas and chimps and manatees).”
Well then Liz lets just abort the retarded kids. I mean they will never do any of those things and will be more of a burden to social security. And what about the aborted kids who grew up to go on welfare and pop out babies who’ll eat up more of your tax money then you’d like with their food stamps?
Obviously most “pro-lifers” on here would have wanted me to have been aborted, had they known I would grow up to be THE WORST THING POSSIBLE! Gasp! A vegetarian!
If you guys think the world would be better off without me (as several of you have expressed) then obviously some humans deserve to be aborted. Um, maybe the ones who don’t grow up and cure cancer?
John M lives on a pension because he’s handicapped. He’s a drain on his countries social security/pension. We wouldn’t need all those kids to work for us if we just got rid of all the cripples and housewives who contribute nothing economically to society.
That’s what you’re basically saying with your “social security” comment.
And weren’t some people here JUST talking about how pro-choice people have pro-choice kids? If the children mimic the parents political opinions then kids who get aborted will just grow up to be pro-abortion anyway.
Janet, just because I don’t want to have children doesn’t mean that all pro-choice individuals don’t want children. I’d probably go so far as to say I’m atypical on that issue, to be honest. Also, you say that pro-choicers don’t necessarily have lower morals, yet you say that only parents who care about their children’s moral upbringing will pass down pro-life ideals. How do the two reconcile?
Elisabeth, anywhere from 10-25% of all pregnancies end in a miscarriage. By protesting specifically with regards to abortion, pro-lifers are being disingenuous by suggesting that it’s just abortion that causes an increased risk.
BTW, that was Human Abstract not signed in. Got a bit carried away, plus I was cuddling one of my animals.
By protesting specifically with regards to abortion, pro-lifers are being disingenuous by suggesting that it’s just abortion that causes an increased risk
And how exactly could we stop a NATURAL process from occurring? Miscarriages happen, it’s not like pro-lifers can stop that from happening. And I don’t really think that pro-lifers are trying to say that ONLY abortion causes an increased risk. At least I’ve never heard that. So I don’t really see anything disingenuous about it.
Elisabeth, anywhere from 10-25% of all pregnancies end in a miscarriage. By protesting specifically with regards to abortion, pro-lifers are being disingenuous by suggesting that it’s just abortion that causes an increased risk.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 8, 2008 11:02 PM
————————————————
There are risk factors in life that we have control over, there are risk factors in life that we have no control over. I have no control over risk factors for many disease processes such as my age, my gender, my family medical history, my ethnicity, so on and so forth. I also have no control over whether or not I have a miscarriage.
I do have control over some risk factors: whether I smoke, whether I eat a healthful diet or an unhealthful one, whether I exercise and how much…. and whether or not I have an abortion.
Other than letting people know that they need to have increased preventative screening and be very careful about their controllable risk factors… there isn’t much we can do about uncontrollable risk factors.
The controllable risk factors however? Easy. I don’t pick up a cigarette…. I don’t miss my scheduled exercise… and I don’t have an abortion.
HA,
Janet, just because I don’t want to have children doesn’t mean that all pro-choice individuals don’t want children. I’d probably go so far as to say I’m atypical on that issue, to be honest. Also, you say that pro-choicers don’t necessarily have lower morals, yet you say that only parents who care about their children’s moral upbringing will pass down pro-life ideals. How do the two reconcile?
Good questions! I didn’t mean to say that parents who pass on PC values are less interested in their children’s moral upbringing than PL’rs. Their morals are different. I’m re-thinking my prior comments …. we might be closer in our opinions on this than I first thought. I think Pro-life conviction comes from parental instruction/example and life experience As we have seen on this blog, there are women who have had abortions who are strongly pro-life because of that experience. I grew up in a Catholic, pro-life family with many children. As the oldest of six, it was with great joy that I welcomed each child home. I lost a brother who only lived one day, and although I was too young to comprehend what happened, I still grieve his loss. I believe my upbringing strongly influenced my anti-abortion stance. (I remember sitting at the dinner table with my family in disbelief, on the night we found out that Roe v. Wade was passed.) I still have a very difficult time intellectually making sense of the PC stance.
Elisabeth,
Thanks for your insightful, intellectual and informed contributions.
Eating Vegetarian didn’t help Linda McCartney, who died from Breast Cancer. :(
That’s why even if you eat extremely healthy (no red meat), you should get a yearly mammogram.
I let the AFA in on that little snippet about Nintendo supporting Planned Parenthood.