Do you display one of those pink ribbons for Breast Cancer Awareness? How aware are you really?
I'm someone who believes that there are really few, if any, incurable diseases and/or conditions. Among those that seem to be incurable, many, if not most, are avoidable. Cancer falls into either category. We often set ourselves up for cancers by our lifestyles through what we ingest, inhale or absorb through our skin. We cripple our immune systems and render them too weak to do their jobs from these poor practices as well as through poor nutrition needed to fuel our systems properly. Not easy to do as we live our lives in today's world, but not impossible if we really care enough. Like most of life, it's a matter of trade-offs, a little work and study, and some of that nasty self-discipline.
Self-discipline. That's the hardest part. Doing what's best and avoiding what ain't. Here's a trade-off for ya: the pill or no sex? Of course, one could say, the pill or condoms. Either way. The pill has been shown to raise the chances of breast cancer, especially in young women who have not yet been pregnant. (Irony here. Doing what one tries to avoid might prevent what one doesn't want.) This article presents information that should be more public but isn't.
Like the abortion/breast cancer link, the pill/breast cancer link is downplayed. You'd think feminist groups like NOW and NARAL would be sounding the alarms...oh wait. They LOVE abortion and the pill. They love the pill so much they insist on a morning after version which is just the pill at a larger dose. OK, that's just a joke. Not the part about feminists loving abortion and the pill. The joke is that they are really looking out for womanhood. They aren't looking out for women anymore than GLSEN is looking out for homosexuals. If they really cared, this stuff about connections with cancer wouldn't be underplayed. What it amounts to is an incredibly heinous lie that leads to death or disfigurement.
It's simple, really. Do you like your breasts? I do. I don't want to see them harmed in the least. They look good on you, they belong on your chests and someday some baby of yours might want lunch. Why take chances? To get laid? C'mon. You're supposed to be liberated now. Why use your liberation to be like the men you considered immature? Why put yourself at risk? Take charge of yourselves and you'll be taking care of yourselves.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
If feminist really cared about woman they would try to foster an attitude of abstinence. I can't think of one profession or lifestyle where increased sexual activity is beneficial. Ok, well there is one.
From the time girls start to mature these groups should be encouraging them to ignore liberal style promiscuity and take pride in their own self worth. The problem of course is this style of self sustainment and discipline will remove any dependance the girls have special interest groups like NOW.
From NOW's and the DNC's point of view it's better to keep girls in danger of unplanned pregnancies, poverty and disease.
According to The National Cancer Institute:
"The risk of endometrial and ovarian cancers is reduced with the use of [oral contraceptives], while the risk of breast and cervical cancers is increased"
So which will it be? Breasts and cervix or uterus and ovaries? Your choice or a woman's?
Pretty much blows away your entire "feminists aren't looking out for women" argument, doesn't it?
Jim,
The risk of endometrial and ovarian cancers is reduced with the use of better nutrition. Drugs that kill the unborn are not necessary.
And no, it doesn't blow away my point at all. This info is NOT highlighted by the feminists. In fact, of the two (the risks vs the advantages) which would you wager gets more attention from the fems? I put my money on YOUR info while the risks are ignore, diminished or hidden. It doesn't fit the agenda.
Better nutrition. What does better nutrition not aid, except a reduction in stupidity? Better nutrition helps heart disease but doctors also recommend a drink - especially of red wine - a day and maybe an aspirin if people have high cholesterol, as a regimen.
But you want to pit yourself against the National Cancer Institute? Would that a carrot would solve your problem.
Locke would not like this, you know, putting revelation over reason like you do. He says it leads to wars.
"What does better nutrition not aid, except a reduction in stupidity?"
Then there's no hope for you.
"But you want to pit yourself against the National Cancer Institute?"
Making lame assumptions again, are we?
"Locke would not like this..."
Besides you and the lice in your hair, who freakin' cares what Locke would like?
You can't come up with your own material?
That's a funny comment considering absolutely NOTHING you use is based on your own alleged abilities to reason. You're a true product of the work and opinions of other people. And as I said, I question the quality and character of the people upon whom you put so much faith.
"I question the quality and character of the people..."
If all I had to draw upon were your experiences of community, Marshall, I'd come to the same conclusion you do.
If all you had to draw upon were my experiences, Feo boy, you'd be far better off. You've filled your addled brain with too much liberal crap to see clearly.
Post a Comment