As many people likely already know, The Toronto Star reported yesterday that Belinda Stronach has breast cancer. Christians, of course, because we believe that every single person (from conception to natural death) has human dignity and worth are to will the good for everyone. We are also required to pray for our opponents, as Our Lord taught.

So, whether we are social conservatives or liberals, we are all joined to one another by our common humanity. I want to reiterate again my sincerest hope that Belinda pulls through this. My thoughts and my prayers will be with her and her children in the coming days and weeks.

Tragic as Belinda’s situation is, her condition not only affects her but millions of women across the world. As such, if it is germaine to talk about breast cancer, then it is also germaine to talk about the root causes of it.

Two root causes of breast cancer are abortion and oral contraceptives. Those are the facts.

Those facts are hard for the Left to deal with. They completely dismiss it, despite the substantial wealth of journal approved research on the subject. Here is the latest one, published in the renowned Mayo Clinic Proceedings Journal.

“A Meta-analysis, the article finds an increased risk for breast cancer of 44 percent, in pre-menopausal women who took or were taking oral contraceptives prior to their first pregnancy, compared to women who had not used oral contraceptives.”

Read more about this finding here.

Is breast cancer caused by oral contraceptives and abortion only? No, but the scientific literature indicates that they are often strong, contributing factors.

Obviously we do not know why Belinda Stronach got breast cancer. But the sad truth of the matter is that many women today are on the pill. It does us no good to cover our eyes and plug our ears to the evidence that our own behaviour might be a contributing factor to our own sicknesses. This is not politically correct since we have been conditioned to think that our sexual choices have no consequences to us or anyone else. But it is certainly scientifically correct. And in the world of nature, political correctness doesn’t count.

I ask you, honestly, just how realistic it is for women to think that pumping high levels of estrogen into their bodies will have no health consequences? Is that a realistic assumption? Really?

Women deserve to know the truth. It is a human right to have this information readily available and presented to them BEFORE they make their choices. They need to know the risks. Let’s face it. Women need to face the realization that ultimately they will bear direct the health burden of oral contraception and abortion.

Women are being used by men for sexual pleasure, and they are being told that oral contraceptives or abortion is the insurance policy in the event of an unwanted pregnancy. What kind of deal is that when this insurance policy is a sham?

You know, we always hear the legitimate argument that women are the ones who bear the costs of an unwanted pregnancy. This is true. No argument there.

But is it not also true that women bear the costs of abortion and chemical contraceptives too?

There’s losers on both sides of the coin. So, in the future, I say to our opponents: please drop the koolaid jingles about an unwanted pregnancy being the worst thing possible. A dead baby, breast cancer, and the rest of the consequent fall-out sure comes in a close second.

Let women know the truth.

8 Responses to “”
  1. Anonymous says:

    are hardly credible in your concern for women when you sport an anti-Status of Women link and derogatory logo next to your post. I hear a lot of pro-lifers going on about their concern for the woman, the consequences of abortion, yet you want to undermine the resources and recources of women in need.

    Yes, sexual choices have consequences, and although men are equally involved in the sex bit, they do not face the same consequences if a pregnancy occurs. It is people like you who make Status of Women still so necessary today.

    As for Ms. Stronach and your judgemental comments – her actions on behalf of needy people in other countries gives her a moral standing that does not put both of you in the same species. To use that woman’s misfortune as a way of promoting your narrow-minded, mysogynistic bigotry is appalling.

    Oh…the publicity? Don’t thank us. We want your words spread across the Net so that people who really do care about freedom, rights, and life can show how devoid of compassion you are. People like you are dangerous – constantly trying to impose your bleak view of humanity and your hate filled ideology on all.

    900ft Jesus

  2. Colm says:

    Hi John,

    The root cause of breast cancer isn’t necessarily abortion or oral contraceptives, although there is an indirect relation. The issue is the maturation of the female body, which is often delayed or not allowed to occur when a woman has abortions or uses contraception without ever being pregnant. Pregnancy induces the full maturation of a woman’s body, particularly the breast. Immature breasts are more susceptible to cancer because they provide more ‘spaces and opportunities’ for cancerous cells to develop and imbed themselves. Hence many women in the 30′s and 40′s who did not have children, or had a child later on, are especially at risk for breast cancer.

    It is a tragic thing whenever a person develops cancer, and I agree that we should be able to talk about the root causes of the ‘femine cancers’ like we are able to speak of the relation of cigarette smoking to lung cancer.

    And as for these fellow posters… well, I haven’t read your site before so I can’t offer up any judgements of you myself. Hah! I think you should take no offense from any person who thinks that the SOWC offices had anything to do with providing resources to women in need.

  3. John Pacheco says:

    Hi Colm,

    Actually the evidence is quite conclusive about oral contraceptives and breast cancer.

    There is a stronger link between OCs and breast cancer than there is between abortion and breast cancer.

    Check it out here:

    http://therosarium.ca/indextemps/cancer.html

    I’ll be adding some more research I have found in the near future as well.

    Thanks for dropping by!

    God bless you.

  4. John Pacheco says:

    >>are hardly credible in your concern for women when you sport an anti-Status of Women link and derogatory logo next to your post.

    + The “Status of Women” is anti-woman and a complete farce. They are out of touch with basic femininty and what women and mother want. They belong in the 60s.

    >>I hear a lot of pro-lifers going on about their concern for the woman, the consequences of abortion, yet you want to undermine the resources and recources of women in need.

    + What resources are those? Access to information from peer reviewed journals? Perhaps you simply want “resources” that align with your own narrow ideological views, but when bona fide research throws a wrench in your whole sexual world view, all I hear is a lot of screaming and hollering without any substantial engagement. It’s so very typical of the left.

    >>Yes, sexual choices have consequences, and although men are equally involved in the sex bit, they do not face the same consequences if a pregnancy occurs.

    + No argument there. This is a two way street. Men have to shape up and realize they have the first responsibility to love and respect women enough for sex to actually matter. That doesn’t include pumping them with harmful carcinogens.

    >>It is people like you who make Status of Women still so necessary today.

    + Gee. Thanks! It’s quite a compliment to know that people like me have such an influence. Does that mean we get public funding too? Or is that just reserved for some women and not others?

    >>As for Ms. Stronach and your judgemental comments – her actions on behalf of needy people in other countries gives her a moral standing that does not put both of you in the same species. To use that woman’s misfortune as a way of promoting your narrow-minded, mysogynistic bigotry is appalling.

    + Well, I make no apologies for taking opportunities like this one to point out the risks. None whatsoever. However, in the case of Belinda, it should have been phrased more charitably and for that I am genuinely sorry.

    >>Oh…the publicity? Don’t thank us. We want your words spread across the Net so that people who really do care about freedom, rights, and life can show how devoid of compassion you are.

    + You have some nerve talking about “life” when your side does not think twice about the butchery of thosands of VIABLE unborn babies whose pictures are easily accessible ont internet. There is no protection for an unborn child in this country right up until the moment of birth. If you want to be outraged about something, try getting upset about something which is nothing less than mass human genocide in our own country.

    And don’t talk to me about compassion. Pro-life work from assisting mothers to fighting for the unborn is the most important work in the world today. It is facing the greatest human holocaust this world has ever known.

    >>People like you are dangerous – constantly trying to impose your bleak view of humanity and your hate filled ideology on all.

    A bleak view of humanity is one that kill humanity at the service of our culture’s sex gods.

    There is no future without a respect for life, the basic and most fundamental right before any other.

  5. Paladiea says:

    METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE and PubMed databases and
    bibliography reviews to identify case-control studies of OCs and
    premenopausal breast cancer published in or after 1980. Search
    terms used included breast neoplasms, oral contraceptives, contraceptive
    agents, and case-control studies.

    From your “study”. This wasn’t a double blind test, but merely an analysis of statistical trends which showed a correlation between breast cancer and the use of oral contraception.

    AH-HA you say! But let me point out that ice cream consumption is also correlated with an increase of drowning. But they’re not linked.

    A correlation is not evidence of causation.

    Once again you’re standing on shoddy science.

  6. Paladiea says:

    Women are being used by men for sexual pleasure, and they are being told that oral contraceptives or abortion is the insurance policy in the event of an unwanted pregnancy. What kind of deal is that when this insurance policy is a sham?

    Wow. Just wow. So women can’t make decisions about their sexuality and are just being used? Heaven forbid a woman gets horny! The poor dears!

  7. John Pacheco says:

    Nothing wrong with getting horny (in the correct context of course), but women should know the risks of pumping themselves with poison, just the same.

  8. John Pacheco says:

    Paladiea,

    So you think something published in Mayo is “shoddy science”?

    I am sorry, but you need to acquaint yourself with a basic understanding of legitimate scientific journals.

    The link is all but established. What remains to be seen is how the Left chooses to ignore and fantasize away the reality so they may sustain a dying sexual ideology.

  9.  
Trackbacks
  1.  
Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>