Darlin's ya'll been on mah mind--I tell you, I've been so busy I just cain't seem to hardly find time for bloggin'. Where are mah priorities, huh?
You'd jes' never believe who I've had for company this week, slipped in the back porch door (see photo) nope, you'd never credit it. Durn near kept me busy night and day, no time for bloggin'.
I have unfinished bidness with Bird but the rest of you are welcome to horn in here and speak your piece. On the touchy topic of abortion--but this here post ain't about right nor wrong of it, but about health issues. Ya'' know that about 170,000 cases of breast cancer pop up each year--it's a worry, I tell you.
Ole' Aunty Belle here gets her feathers ruffled when folks is talkin 'bout "choice" but the poor lady doan know what all it is she's a choosin', so here is some information that adds to the "choice."
First, we have to keep in mind that abortion is a bidness and part of an ideology and so it is protected in a manner of speaking--that is, its drawbacks are downplayed or covered up for ideological or commercial reasons. When social or political careers and such are at risk, the truth can be the casualty-this is how you get'cha self some dueling reports, some off-settin studies, keepin' yore neck on a swivel.
British Medical Association’s Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health studied evidence of the breast cancer-induced abortion link going back to 1957. The stats indicate a 30% increased risk when a woman has had an induced abortion. Shortly afterwards, in the New England Journal of Mediicine Dr. Mads Melbye ( Demark) published another report claiming no such link was verified.
By 1997 thirty studies had been done worldwide, an' twenty-four of em showed there's increased breast cancer risk. One of the most famous yes-it-does-no-it-don't tussles starred the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (ya'll KNOWS that public heatlth officials strongly favor abortion) Here's how the tog-o-war began: November 1994, Dr. Janet Daling at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle reported some astounding findings --50 percent increased risk of breast cancer with elective abortion (not same thang as a miscarriage),
Well, mah pets, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute printed her study but stuck in its own op-ed that poked fun at Dr. Daling’s findings. So of course ladies magazines (Elle) and groups ran lots o' denials from gubmint "experts. "
But sweet chillins', accordin' to Dr. Joel Brind (http://www.abortioncancer.com/)
when a lady concieves her hormones is in overdrive-- estrogen increases mor'n a hundred times normal when she conceives. Naturally, the first physical change to the newly pregnant lady is in her breasts. Hormones jes' go haywire, leading to the growth of "undifferentiated" cells in the breast so her body can begin to make milk for littlle ones. Now the problem is that those unifferentiated cells is a weak cell--very tender and vulnerable to cancer causing agents.
But if her pregnancy is not interrupted, those cells go on to be "terminally differentiated" so she can nurse the baby, but these differentiated cells ain't so tender or vulnerable to cancer culprits. So you can see, that iffin her pregnancy is abruptly terminated she is left with all those undifferentiated cells jes' waitin to become cancerous.
A' course, Planned Parenthood and others drag out "reporting bias" as the explanation for the reported ABC (Abortion Breast Cancer) link.
Well, they's a whole bunch more I could throw out there, but anyone who wants to investigate can find stacks of data on the subject.
Aunty Belle is anxious that your dear darlin' girls get the information you need a'fore you make a decision like this.
Lawdy, youn'uns, this ole' back is biting me an' I gots to git to myself to baid-- now it is late. But ya'll stay and jaw iffin' you like. You knows where the Jack Black is kept. Jes' slip on out the back porch door when you leave, and turn off the light for me sweet pets.
Nighty-nite.
10 comments:
I forget the name of the correlation that marks two unrelated items as linked. Drat, I AM a bad student.
Anyway, I wanted to say Bell that the cancer link looks plausable but I have not read up on it. I would make sense though. Common sense is critical in this world.
Abstinence is the only real solution and if that were the case, NOBODY would ever get born.
I was a ....surprise.....
but I popped out anyway.
Sometimes though, the mother knows that the child will have a hard life, I think that is where the choice comes in.
In high school, in Texas, I knew a girl who had had 7 abortions.
She was a 16 year old freshman and the school slut.
She was my friend in gym class.
I hated gym class. So did she.
She had low self esteem and was also high all the time. I think drugs and impaired jugement and abortion are all linked.
But why do people become addicts? That is the real question. Why is life needing to be altered?
But anyway, a 16 year old with 7 abortions under her belt in the late 80's in not acceptable.
It was her method of birth control.
It made me sad.
Bye Bell, thnx for the brownie(s)
WHoo EEE! Looky whose been heah--welcome clansman. Jes'delighted to have you come by.
Tsk tsk...hemorrhoids is one vexation I ain't never had to deal with, mercy be thanked.
As to the abortion and breast cancer link---the link is rather strong Ardlair.
My point ain't about decision makin' as much as a woman havin' the full disclosure about the link afore she makes the decision. The bidness end of the abortion industry is mighty anxious to keep that info stuffed in a paper bag. Ole' Aunty here is jes' wantin' them to play fair--let the woman know what the full story is.
As for the moral argument about abortion--why that is a long slog--but I am up to it iffin' you want to get that one lined up after the atheism exchange. Fer shiore nuff, it won't be dull.
I left some of the moral discussion at BogsBlog a while back, iffin' you wanna take a look see--but for now, let's jes' note that it is a disservice to women sold to them as a service and a "right." No woman is ever OK afterwards. It messes with her hormones and her psyche. it is an abuse of woman.
* * *
COntessa!! Hey baby girl. I was an surprise too!! Lot's of us are. It means heaven wanted us out here gettin' to know each other.
Sorry about your gym friend--you raise an awfully good question, chile: "Why does life need to be altered?"
Naturally I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
Well, it has been a glorius day--you should see the flowers! Maybe I'll upload some photos of the bloomin' pretty thangs.
I am so proud of myself for gettin' some pictures up on this here blog...had to get a young pup to show me the way--Lawdy, ain't it wonder?
Hey Aunty Belle,
The question that is not answered in all the information you provided is how the body copes with a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage). I had a late ish miscarriage (14.5wks) & had to have drugs to dry up my milk.
According to the info you have here, that puts me at the same increased risk of breast cancer as someone who had an abortion by choice.
As Ardlair said - its association rather than causation.
I think there is a terminology problem tho' with pro-life vs pro-choice. I don't believe anyone is anti-life. No woman wants to be in the position where she has to terminate a pregnancy for any reason. But ultimately, it is her choice and I believe that it is time we stepped out from a patriarchal banner which dictates to women on the basis that they are not *capable* of making the best financial, emotional, physical & spiritual decisions for themselves & their bodies. Dictating that a child must be born regardless of the potential damage to all areas of a woman's life is heinous & dispicable.
Howdy Bluebolt,
I hear you on this tragic matter of abortion, choice and women...I do hear you, sweet pet.
In fact, one of mah chief aggravations with pro-life activists is that they doan make clear that they's also interested in the woman, not only the baby.
But I must jes' say a few quick thangs more--first, mah topic above was about full information, not moral choices, but *medical* choices.
Now, the causation/association response is innteresting, but the science indicates causation, though the precise process is not understood yet.
(Note to Ardlair, who said: "So I'd stick to trying to argue it down on purer, moral grounds..........or have you acknowledged defeat on those?" No, no, puddin, if you wanna go thata way, jes' pipe up and we can begin--you load the first round on the moral points and I'll match'cha!)
Bluebolt, in your own case of late term miscarriage (I am so sorry!) it is not the same as induced abortion. Your body knew weeks before that thangs weren't progressing right and the shut down of hormones began--not completed hence your lactation, but still the body was prepared far more than with an abortion. (Also, most studies indicate that the strongest breast cancer correlation is when the indued abortion is before there is at least one normal full term delivery)
And the other thang is that it ain't the banner of patriarchy that defends babies and pregnancy--it is the opposite: a twisted version of patriarchy that waves abortion at the poor woman--using her body then discardin' the natural fertility of her body by violent means --with no regard for what it does to her health or emotions.
Abortion serves irresponsible men far more than it gives a woman proof of her "capable" ness.
I'm gettin' to love you folks here in blogland. I doan mean to be ornery on this point so please lemme make real, real sure ya'll know that I ain't judging, blaming or finger pointin' at anybody a'tall.
No siree, I ain't even thinkin' thataway. I have too many loved ones who have made that decison and wisht that they had known they didn't have to. I'm jes' saying that dogs is treated better--that's the verifiable truth.
Did you know vet'nary clinics are inspected for cleanliness more often than "women's clinics"? And I s'pose you heard that two more American girls died of R-U 486 this week?
You see, no one wants to turn in an abortionist, so he/she gets away with the worst travesty--poor sanitation, poor technique (know how many perforated uteruses go unreported at many clinics until finally a woman bleeds to death and the place is reported?).
If we'uns gonna have the "right" to abortion, let's at least make it clean and careful under extreme penalty.
'Course, as I have said someplace else, cain't we, as a culture, try to move beyond "rights" to the higher order of love? We talk of making room for the immigrant, why not the baby?
Poor ole' Aunty Belle is jes' old fashioned enough to think that sex is for love, not entertainment. And if it is for love, then love says, this baby is you and me, and we will find a way to make a place for it.
Gracious, that is a novel idea in modern speak, I know. Sorry that I sound so much like a Model T.
What ya'll goin' to do with me?? Jes' put me up on a shelf as an amusin' antique.
Gee ardlair - I think I did the quiz wrong :-)
Thats the first time an online quiz has been unable to categorise me.
Hey Ardlair!! Honey, getcha self on up here on this back poa-rch, tacketty boots an' all.
Youse weary? Needdin' a jawbonin'? Well, let's us get at it! THere's some mint julups in the pitcher over theah (rest of ya'll get a sip too).
OK, lemme see. For starts, you list some of the glories you observe around you--marvelous, ain't they?
This is where atheism jes' plumb confounds me--why is all this beauty heah? Why is it that there's somethin' rather than nothin'?
When you sets me straight on that, then mebbe I can speak to your version of atheism. I'm anxious to understand this point.
Ardlair, hey Darlin'!
Really proud to have you sit a spell. And so pleased youse a feelin' better.
Your comment was :
"I think you should have a stab at the answer to your own question first Aunty Belle, and that will help us quickly on our way. Cos what I think you are really asking is what the meaning of life is, the purpose of it all, if there ain't no god."
.........Oh gracious, no, kinsman, I'm not askin' what the meaning of life is. I think I got aholt a' that. Good enough fer an ole' biddy anyhow --nope, that warn't my question to you.
My question to you is, why is there somethin' instead of nothin'?
This is a scientific question as well as existential.
I am a curious soul, and jes' needin' insight into how an atheist arranges his mind when he is a lookin' at the stars, feeling the breath o' that lovely loch across one's brow, contemplatin' the wonder of the intricate abundance o'r all this earth.
Then you said, "And I guess your thinking that the existence of a god justifies it all."
No,puddin' --how funny--thas' not a good guess, not it a'tall. The existence of God did not necessitate the rest of the cosmos. God sure doan need no things, no moon for a footstool, no planets to for planetary bowling....no *need* for there to be anything at all. All that exists is from the sheer exuberance of love, a creative love, a joyful creatin' jes' for the love of it.
And all that exists doan need no justifying, it is pure gift-but it do require an intelligent response. Thas' the question for yer...
Naturally my mind arranges it in reference to God--but how does your mind give context to what exists?
--How's it that you frame all this? What context do you give it? What do an atheist say as to *Why* is there something at all, rather than a vast comsic nothingness? And what's it for?
I jes' need a little hep getting a handle on how an atheist arranges in his mind the reception of all that exists.
Now, here honey, put another cushion behind your back and get comfortable. We'uns is gonna have a fine time together. I like yore spirit.
I don't consider myself an athiest, cause I don't believe in 'nothing' - I don't believe in God, but I do believe in the power of the universe & nature. I believe in Karma - which every religion includes - do as you would be done by - or be done by as you did; do unto others etc.....
I have seen this work in my life.
I believe in wonder and the moment.
Guess I'm good company then :-)
Hey BB--I see you survived Larry--Whew!! We'un have plent yof hurricnes here abouts and I knows how it can be....
Ardlair,
honey, hope you doan mind, but I think I'd better move this discussion to it's own page. So look for the continuing discussion under the title of "Atheists explain all"
Did'ja get'cha boulders down to pebbles yet?
Post a Comment