for the idiots out there who think breeding will reduce breast cancer risk..
December 11, 2018
""https://www.cbsnews.com/news/breast-cancer-risk-may-increase-for-24-years-after-childbirth-study-finds/""
but it's wuuuurth it

two cents ¢¢

CERTIFIED HOSEHEAD!!!

people (especially women) do not give ONE DAMN about what they inflict on children
and I defy anyone to prove me wrong:

The selfish wants of adults outweigh the needs of the child.

If I want to hear the pitter-patter of little feet I'll put shoes on my pets.

Mankind and its needs (wants) are like unto a black hole. It devours all available resources and it never is full: it merely grows larger and demands more.

Definition of 'wealthy': Anyone who makes more/has more than you do.

Someone pointed out that I'm a realist. And all along I thought I was just a pessimist crossed with a cynic.

Entitlement, thy name is mooooooooooooooo

"Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove
they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen.
Add to this that, many of those who refuse or are unable to prove they are
citizens, will receive free insurance paid for by those who are.""

I am confused enough already. I do not need outside help.
They really need to make up their minds. I think more than one female here has been told not having kids increases the risk of breast cancer. I never believed it or cared because if anything wrecks havoc on hormones it is giving birth. And I can't think of anything that would stress me out worse than having kids except being very ill (and likely dying as a side effect) so at that point it doesn't matter what the fatal diagnosis is.
Either that or they have figured out publishing an article as a scare tactic for all women who have given birth to have earlier mammograms is a money-maker. As I recall there was an article a few years ago stating women could postpone mammograms for a number of years, think instead of age 35 or 40 they were encouraged to wait until 50.
I get SO confused by all these contradicting studies posted online. I just don't know what to believe anymore.

It kind of flies in the face of that lovely bingo, "Your chances of breast cancer are reduced after you have a chyllld", however.

When I first heard of an increased risk of breast cancer due to not sprogging, I thought that I'd take my chances. A LOT of things can cause cancer, and I'm not going to worry about every little thing I do or don't do that may increase my chances.

Sorry, but I choose not to destroy my life because of fear-mongering.
It is actually a pretty common thing, saying that giving birth and breast feeding have a protective effect against breast cancer. (Likely manufactured by the Tit Nazis, who want women chained to their houses and baybees after birth.)

It was even mentioned in the episode of SATC when NMNK Samantha was diagnosed with breast cancer. I don't remember exactly what happened but I think someone shamed her and suggested she deserved her fate by not having kids.

I don't care if it IS proven that kids reduce cancer risk....still not worth it.
Eh, plenty of people get breast cancer whether or not they have kids. It may be more environmentally influenced from plastics than breeding actually. Oh well, I'd rather risk cancer than stress of kids.
One woman in our neighborhood who never had kids developed both breast and brain cancer, is a cancer survivor of both. She knows where the cancer came from: For decades, she worked with engineers as a technician and secretary for the Circle Bar W Radium Ranch - otherwise known here as Westinghouse.
Pretty much everyone gets cancer. Doesn't matter what you do, what you take, how much you breed, or how well you take care of yourself, you'll get it sooner or later. You just don't know when or what kind. It's the downside of a longer life span - in exchange for living through things that would have killed you at a younger age, you get to live long enough to develop cancer.

And imagine the guilt that would be heaped upon the child who was born to protect Mommy from breast cancer only for her to get it anyway.
Yup, I think the highest risk for developing any type of cancer is just being born. Maybe moos should mull that one over for a little while?
Yepp, antinatalism is, objectively speaking, the ultimate way to battle cancer for good grinning smiley

All these studies slowly get really annoying, especially for a person like me, who tends to be paranoid about health.
There's no consistency, no useful info how to actually prevent cancer, just panic-making - and moneymaking resulting from panic-making.
And it can't even be the "modern" stuff alone causing it - I mean freaking mummies were found of people who died of cancer as early as during neolithic age.
Cancer seems simply damn unpredictable.
My grandmother for example, never smoked, never drank alcohol, always lived a healthy life. Still, died of lung cancer. And my own mother lived pretty healthily, too, but still got breast cancer, but survived it.

Life is and always will be a gamble, and there's nothing much to be done about it, especially not sluicing.

I'm no doc, but I do know that stress and negative emotions do ruin both mind and physical body. And what causes more negativity than an unwanted loaf. Nothing, in my opinion. So - sluicing is hazardous to health. One way or the other.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freedom & Art & Music >>>>>>>>>> human spawn

"Music is immortal. People are not."
-William Anger, "King's Story" - Thief2 FM by Zontik
I have a Catholic friend who is on her sixth child & developed breast cancer during pregnancy. She's under 35 too. But I figure it's more of a genetic thing than anything to do with how many kids she has...cancer is rife in her family tree. Sure enough they found some gene that pre-destines her to having cancer so she's having both boobs removed & some other organs.

That's what most cancer is: a genetic lottery. I wouldn't worry too much unless it runs in your family.
It can still be a crapshoot, but genetics does play a role. My family (at least my mother's side) is pretty damn healthy aside from nearsightedness and thyroid disease. I think the youngest someone in my family has died so far is 81 - everyone else lived to their 90s or 100s (or they're currently at one of those ages). That "young" person also had a shitload of health problems (including two kinds of cancer for which she had no risk factors which she also survived) that nobody else in the family ever got. It's like she drew everybody's short straw.

A family history of cancer could mean you get it too, or maybe not. Meanwhile, your whole family could be in tip-top shape and you might still wind up sick as a dog and die miserably of something nobody else in the family ever had. Everything causes cancer - something might reduce the risk of three cancers, but increase the risk of three other ones. All you can do is roll the dice and hope you don't get snake eyes. Some people smoke their whole lives and never so much as get short of breath. Others never smoke a single cigarette and die of lung cancer.

And considering all the negative ways in which pregnancy affects the body, I can't imagine that any disease prevention is worth the damage pregnancy does and I'm sure it increases the risk of some cancers too. Pregnancy affects the whole body, and not only that, pregnancy and the human body do not play nice together. Were it not for certain factors, the body would see a pregnancy as an intruder and attack it. Conversely, if a pregnancy were not contained within the biological padded room known as the uterus, it would run rabid through the body wrecking everything it could. Given the extreme bodily hatred between fetus and mother, you can't tell me pregnancy wouldn't increase the risk of serious problems.

Quote
trance formation usa
Sure enough they found some gene that pre-destines her to having cancer so she's having both boobs removed & some other organs.

BRCA mutation, I'm guessing. If you're a woman and you have that genetic mutation, you're pretty much guaranteed to get breast cancer before age 35. And just about all cases of male breast cancer occur in men who inherit this same mutation from one or both parents, though they aren't nearly as likely to get breast cancer compared to women with the same gene.
Yep, that's the one. BRCA. She's having a hysterectomy too, which I'm sure will come with a miserable set of side effects. Her cancer was one of the nastier kinds but in remission now & doesn't APPEAR to have spread to lymph nodes, but we all know how it can just turn up later with a vengeance. So scary. I'm sure some of her kids will end up with that shitty gene too. :\

Pregnancy sounds like a nightmare on the body. I think the U.S. has the highest rate of childbirth mortality for moms in the developed world too. People (usually men) talk about it like it's nothing...as if that's a woman's sole purpose in life & a foregone conclusion. Would like to see them push something that big out of their sex organ after 9 months of gestation, morning sickness & other miserable symptoms. Somehow I don't think they'd take it so lightly or put abortion down so much if it were them.
Quote
trance formation usa
Pregnancy sounds like a nightmare on the body. I think the U.S. has the highest rate of childbirth mortality for moms in the developed world too. People (usually men) talk about it like it's nothing...as if that's a woman's sole purpose in life & a foregone conclusion. Would like to see them push something that big out of their sex organ after 9 months of gestation, morning sickness & other miserable symptoms. Somehow I don't think they'd take it so lightly or put abortion down so much if it were them.

Abortion would never have been illegal if men suffered any physical symptoms. It is highly likely that if men only became pregnant that women would likely rule and keep abortion illegal. At the very least I guarantee women would have more power as a whole. I'd love to explore this idea further as it sparking imagination!

That sympathy pregnancy crap is fake and men who do that for attention are the worst (they're having a physical reaction, gaining weight etc. and blaming it on their significant other).
I also wanted to mention that stress is a killer. It can cause all kinds of psychological and physical symptoms, from depression to heart disease. I could think of nothing more stressful than having a kid. I'm sorry, but I'm just not convinced that not sluicing can lead to breast cancer. I think that some of these studies are used as 'scare tactics' to keep women in their place.

And, ITA that abortion wouldn't even be an issue if it were men who sluiced. They would probably be free, and birth control options would be plentiful. It's because women are the ones who get pregnant, and are still considered the primary carers for loaves that abortion is even a debate.
Actually just saw something in recent health headlines that pregnancy actually increases a woman's chance of developing breast cancer:

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/the-risk-of-breast-cancer-after-childbirth

And also that breast cancer is up to five times more likely to metastasize in women who have given birth within the past 10 years:

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-01/uoca-bcu011519.php

So yeah, what was this about breeding keeping breast cancer away?
Quote
freya
Abortion would never have been illegal if men suffered any physical symptoms.

You know what they say: If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login