MoltenThought Logo
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."
Sir Winston Churchill

11.02.2007

Feminists Hate Women and "Susan G Komen" is a Feminist

Well, this is surprising! Planned Parenthood and the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation are in ca-hoots:


October has been designated Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and greater awareness is certainly needed... Unfortunately, for some groups, when it comes to breast cancer, it is “Selective Awareness” month.

The National Cancer Institute (part of the National Institutes of Health) and some groups with an interest in “reproductive rights” or breast cancer research are keeping women in the dark about two risk factors for breast cancer: induced abortion and hormonal contraception.

The American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute and the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation continue to deny the link between induced abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer. They make no effort to publicize (or they wholly ignore) the increased risk of breast cancer associated with oral contraceptive use.

The Komen Foundation affiliates (organizers of the “Race for the Cure” cash cow) go the extra 5K: It brings in about $200 million a year, expending three-quarters of that on breast cancer research grants, education, screening and treatment.

Yet, while ostensibly striving to eradicate breast cancer, Komen affiliates give about a half million dollars each year to Planned Parenthood.

Komen’s president and board members, many of whom have extensive links to Planned Parenthood, seem oblivious to this manifest cooperation with evil and to the quintessential irony of giving generously to the nation’s leading abortion chain and cut-rate contraception source. How exactly will that reduce breast cancer rates?

Even medical textbooks are not immune to this truth.

In The Breast, Drs. Kirby Bland and Edward Copeland explain why having a full-term pregnancy early in one’s reproductive years — universally recognized as a factor decreasing breast cancer risk — is not listed in their table of preventive factors: “Unplanned early pregnancy and an average of more than two completed pregnancies per woman have undesirable social and ecological consequences.”

Here, questionable sociology and a zero population-growth agenda have replaced medical decision making and the need for informed consent.

It’s also curious that groups like the National Cancer Institute readily draw attention to inconvenient facts, but then stop short of pointing out the inescapable conclusions to be drawn from those facts.

Premature delivery before 32 weeks more than doubles breast cancer risk, as does induced abortion before 32 weeks — and abortion’s effect increases in proportion to the length of pregnancy before that abortion.

In the Handbook of Diseases of the Breast (2nd ed., 1998), J.M. Dixon et al calculate that oral contraceptives increase the risk of breast cancer by 30%. They then conclude that “considering the benefits of the pill,” this “slight” increase is not significant.

But women who develop breast cancer from this cause would probably consider it highly, even mortally, significant. The authors’ table of factors with “no effect” on breast cancer risk even includes oral contraceptives and induced abortion, contradicting their own estimate of a 30% higher risk.


[Emphasis mine]

When I was in college, studying to be a full-time feminist, it was jammed down my throat how the medical community (run by evil white men) was afraid of and therefore hated the female body. Statistics on the number of routine hysterectomies; the number of deaths reportedly linked to back-alley abortions (in the days before Roe v. Wade); and the disastrous effects of women having little to no access to birth control were waved angrily in my face -- as well as the faces of the other unsuspecting students. Like sheep, we blindly accepted the ideals and "data" from the Radical Feminist agenda. So I spent most of my college years pursuing that agenda, simply because I had been indoctrinated early and often and because no competing views were allowed on my campus.

But even before I became a committed Christian, I started to notice the effects of letting nature do her thing. As a pagan New-Ager, I was close friends with more than one couple who considered birth control an invasion of the natural rhythms of their bodies. Common wisdom spoke loudly to refute the idea that a foreign chemical taken in inappropriate doses was bound to backfire -- however similar to something naturally produced in the body.

Women were made (or evolved, depending on your point of view) to menstruate and give birth. The only reasons nature allows for the interruption of menses are pregnancy and menopause. And the only interruption of pregnancy it allows is spontaneous abortion -- an occurrence that almost always happens through the body's need to preserve the life of the mother or because the forming baby is profoundly flawed.

Really and truly, it doesn't take a spiritual person to understand this. Even if you are an atheist and big supporter of Darwinism, you can see how leaving nature alone to do what nature does perfectly makes all the sense in the world. Being a serious Catholic only helps one to see this in an even clearer light.

So as a sort of "new radical feminist" who believes in the sanctity of and right to life, I can only draw an inevitable conclusion. All the Women's Rights activists (of the stripe I was in my college days) who cart the "right to control their bodies" around like it's some inalienable gift from Darwin -- THEY are the ones who fear and hate the female body. THEY are the ones who despise the pregnant shape; the sanctity of motherhood; the fears and trials of menses, miscarriage and menopause; and the growth of the female body into something decidedly UN-manlike.

Why else would their feminine ideal be a non-menstruating, non-pregnant, promiscuous, workaholic she-male whose morphology is that of an adolescent boy? They don't want women to be women -- they want women to be little men. With all the earmarks. Anything that stands in the way of that goal (like carrying a child to term) must be eliminated. And this agenda must not be stopped. Even if it kills them.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

2 Comments:

Blogger Tucker said...

The National Cancer Institute (part of the National Institutes of Health established by the U.S. Congress) says there is no link between abortion and breast cancer. Quote: "The newer studies consistently showed no association between induced and spontaneous abortions and breast cancer risk." Source: No link between abortion and breast cancer

10:59 AM  
Blogger WordGirl said...

Yes, and for the "proof" found that no link exists, almost all the articles and editorials quote the body who conducted the reasearch: The National Institutes of Health, a group that umbrellas Planned Parenthood. The same Planned Parenthood who have a major financial stake in the abortion and contraception trade.

Reports completely ignore the plethora of information to the contrary. Almost no mention is given at all of the considerable evidence that the National Institute of Health's Study might be wrong. And there is a considerable amount of information that says just that, much of it just as recent as, if not more recent than the National Institute's study.

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/ABC_Research/index.htm

8:15 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home