I'll take my chances.

https://metro.co.uk/2019/02/25/child-free-women-likely-die-cancer-8743167/

Quote


Childless women are 72 per cent more likely to die of cancer than mothers, research suggests. So that’s fun. Scientists followed one per cent of England and Wales’ population over 50 years and came to the conclusion that child free women were considerably more likely to die of cancer as a result of their single lifestyle. The researchers believe ‘clear behavioural changes’ take place when you start a family, including drinking less and not staying out late, which may protect against cancer. So far there doesn’t seem to be an answer to the question ‘why does staying out late for fun give you cancer, but sleep deprivation from having kids doesn’t?’ The research was carried out by The University of Klagenfurt, Austria, and led by Professor Paul Schweinzer, from the department of economics. The scientists analysed data on parental status, marital status and salary from the Office for National Statistics Longitudinal Study. Mothers also have half the risk of dying from infectious diseases or non mothers. The researchers concluded this might be because of the ‘parental co-immunisation hypothesis’ – AKA your kids boosting your immune system by exposing you to all kinds of new germs. So, becoming a parent might well extend your life expectancy. That said, some of those who’ve spent the day babysitting a toddler might argue that they’d rather take their chances on the disease front.


Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2019/02/25/child-free-women-likely-die-cancer-8743167/?ito=cbshare

Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/

I'd love to see a bit more detail on this.
Are they working off the lazy assumption that every childfree person parties 24/7 and lives a life of hedonism.
Reads like a scaremongering load of rubbish.
Surely the stress the little blighters cause would have you in a grave even sooner?

Quote

So far there doesn’t seem to be an answer to the question ‘why does staying out late for fun give you cancer, but sleep deprivation from having kids doesn’t?’

So the research is flawed or-- and hear me out, this is a radical idea-- the results were slanted to make parenting seem like the "right" choice.

I love that it's suggesting the clear behavioural changes are what "save" people from getting cancer. Every parent I know has a better social life and party way more and harder than I and a lot of cf friends do. When they get the chance to go out, they go nuts because they feel "entitled" to let their hair down!

Boy, it really seems like they’ve been ramping up the pro-parenting scare tactics lately.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
"Not every ejaculation deserves a name" - George Carlin

Quote
LoveToLurk
Boy, it really seems like they’ve been ramping up the pro-parenting scare tactics lately.

A response to the actual science starting to come out showing that having kids makes you miserable?

I really wonder how relevant the sample size was for CF people. If 1% of the population was in the study, and the subset of that was the childfree population, it does not sound very large since most people do breed.

And the world "childfree" sounds suspect to me. It sounds like the study used demographic information which does not measure why someone didn't breed, only that they didn't breed.

Quote

Boy, it really seems like they’ve been ramping up the pro-parenting scare tactics lately.

YOU WILL DIE ALONE.
YOU WILL DIE EARLIER.
YOU WON'T BE AS HAPPY*
YOU WILL AGE FASTER.

*They cannot spin the numbers to prove this one YET. There is overwhelming evidence that people who are done with childbearing and rearing are much happier. This is why happiness actually increases at age 60 for many people.

They can keep up the scare-mongering but it will not make a difference for some people. . Even if it were not true I'd rather live a shorter and happier life, as opposed to being saddled with kids I don't want.

I wonder if they added CL Infertiles into the study who have had multiple rounds of IVF and other procedures, THEN tried to lump them in with us truly CF? I do know that IVF is not very successful, and women get shot up with cancer-causing hormones.

I think this is a scare tactic put out by some pseudo-scientists to frighten women into breeding. There are some women in my family, my mother included, who got cancer and they bred. My mother didn't die from cancer, but dementia. I'd be honest. If I had a choice between dying of cancer and dying of dementia, I'd pick the former.

I'd classify this one right along with the study that states that moos age slower than women who don't have kids. It's just a bunch of BS.

Sounds like scare tactics to me. There are so many things that influence a person's risks of getting sick that it can't be tacked down to just one lifestyle choice. Everyone's body is slightly different and it's basically a crapshoot if you get cancer or not, with or without risk factors. Having brats has fuck all to do with it, perhaps with the exception of getting the baby oven ripped out because it was too damaged from sluicing, thereby eliminating the possibility of uterine/endometrial cancer.

I'd love to know what specific cancers childfree women are more likely to die from. Every cancer is different, so surely women without kids would be more likely to develop certain ones? Just saying, "Hurr durr cansurr for all da un-mommies!" makes it sound like a half-assed "study." What cancers did the women in the study die from? What other risk factors were involved? "Cancer" is a very vague term.

---

Quote
Durr
Scientists followed one per cent of England and Wales’ population over 50 years and came to the conclusion that child free women were considerably more likely to die of cancer as a result of their single lifestyle.

Would you trust a study that thinks "childfree" and "single" are the same thing? Apparently all unchilded women are spinsters. I guess all the ladies here in relationships don't exist!

---

Quote
Herp derp
The researchers believe ‘clear behavioural changes’ take place when you start a family, including drinking less and not staying out late, which may protect against cancer.

Orly? Because most parents I know drink more than unchilded people. I'd drink too if I had kids. And what does staying out late have to do with anything?

Not to mention why is this specifically aimed at childless women? Why don't childless men get all this supposed cancer? Does this imply that the cancer that childless women allegedly have a higher risk of developing are female-specific cancers? Or did they just leave men out because men don't give a fuck if their lack of offspring makes them more likely to get sick?

---

Plus, this is from the Daily Fail article linked in that article:

Quote
Daily Fail
For example, among 70-year-old women without offspring, the risk of dying from the disease would be 1.3 per cent, compared to 0.4 per cent among those who have a family.

Saying there's a "72 percent increase" in the risk of getting cancer from not breeding sounds like a MASSIVE number, which I'm sure was an intentional clickbait decision, but I think a human being's overall risk of getting cancer is probably much higher than 1.3 percent regardless of gender or family size. Fuck, I think the average person's overall odds of getting colon cancer alone is something like 4 percent. According to these people, a woman has a less than one percent higher chance of getting some random cancer if she doesn't breed.

Well think of it like this, a woman might live long enough to die from cancer at age 70 if she doesn't die of birth complications at age 30. Because that shit still happens. Something like 50,000 women in the US still die every year from childbirth complications.

Quote
Daily Fail
Mothers also have half the risk of dying from infectious diseases.

Based on a study regarding the health of a measly one percent of the entire British population. As of 2015, Britain's population was 54 million and some change. One percent of that is 540,000. I think the percentage of the world's population that's female is right about 50 give or take, so half of that one percent is 270,000. I'm bad at math and this figure might be off, but 1.3 percent of 270,000 is about 3,510. So per this study, about 3,500 childless women died of cancer compared to 1,080 (0.4%) mothers dying from cancer. What proof other than coincidence in the study participants do they have that breeding had any impact on this?

Even if breeding does make a difference in cancer risk, a one percent increase is so negligible that I really don't think anything other than chance caused that kind of a result. Hasn't the UK been pissing and moaning about record low birth rates the last few years? I'm guessing this bullshit is supposed to encourage women to become broodmares by making them think forgoing brats will protect them from cancer.

I'd rather have cancer and no kids than have cancer and kids. At least you can get rid of your cancer sometimes.

Quote
bell_flower
I really wonder how relevant the sample size was for CF people. If 1% of the population was in the study, and the subset of that was the childfree population, it does not sound very large since most people do breed.

Yep, can't see how they'd be able to analyze anything significant from such a small sample of CF.
I smell bullshit. Love to know who funded this "research" too.

Yet again somebody assumes all "single" people are incurable party animals who spend their lives drinking, drugging, and humping anything that moves. And presumably married people NEVER behave this way. Closely related is the myth that having children makes people grow up and "settle down" , giving up all irresponsible behavior. It sounds like the people who did the study believe that married and childed always go together, as do single and unchilded. I can understand why a hard-partying lifestyle could lead to health risks, but such a lifestyle is certainly not limited to single or childless people. Based on my observations both CF people and those who stay single longer than average are LESS likely to be party animals than those with more conventional lives. This is not true of the CL, and they could have additional health risks from things life IVF. I really wish these old stereotypes and the people who promote them would FOAD.

Yeah, I dunno about the UK, but I know here in 'Murica, having kids sure as hell doesn't make people settle down and become responsible, mature adults. The front page and police briefs in the papers are full of Moos and Duhs who got arrested for shit like reckless driving, possession, assault, theft, breaking and entering and pretty much any other crime you can think of. My former boss was arrested when she was found high in her car slumped over the steering wheel with her brats in the back seat. You can't take the party out of a party animal and being weighed down with kids doesn't slow them down.

It also probably helps narrow down the study group and the types of patterns to look for when you're doing a study that's obviously in favor of breeding. What if it was a neutral study, or one that focuses on the longevity of childfree people? I bet these figures would be much different. What about a study on the bad habits of parents and how it affects their mortality or overall health, or a correlation between the number of children someone has and the number of health problems they develop? Sounds like these morons want to tout reproduction as some kind of health tonic, and when you start skewing sources to suit agendas, it's really easy to find supportive content.

What a clickbait-y garbage article that doesn't cite references while stating ridiculous stats. Also the drawing of the preggo with junk food and her phone on the bed makes no sense.

Edit: I would not trust an online publication with a zillion clickbait-y ads after the article and a banner that claims "135.6 M shared". It's obvious what they're doing, and what they're doing is lying for click throughs.