Coming Home

Posted in Birth Control, Breast Cancer | Tagged Biohazard, Breast Cancer, Estrogen, Oral Contraceptives, WHO | 9 Comments

9 Responses

1. on January 18, 2010 at 10:06 AM Asitiss

   Is chinese salted fish high in mercury, as some fish are?

   Gerard, a comment of mine is not showing up here regarding what Group 1 means.

   
   
2. on January 18, 2010 at 10:16 AM Gerard M. Nadal

   Asitis,

   I saw it a few moments ago. I was modifying the post to remove a few snippets, though I don’t see how that might have affected the comboxes. Your point about strength was well made, as my comments lower down in the post addressed these.

   While high-dose, short-term exposure gets the most press with compounds like plutonium, the low-dose, long-term exposures to less potent carcinogens end up killing orders of magnitude more people. Tobacco is a good example.

   Regarding the estrogens, I remember girls in college back in the late 70’s being told they were perfectly safe. Then came the cancers and other diseases. Now the same merchants tell us that the lower-dose OC’s are “safer”.

   
   
3. on January 18, 2010 at 10:25 AM Asitiss

   “Your point about strength was well made, as my comments lower down in the post addressed these”.

   Using “strongest” at the start of your post is not an appropriate way to describe Group 1. I think, if anything you should change it to “(known carcinogen)”.

   Let me know if you want me to resubmit my comment. I have it still.

   
   
4. on January 18, 2010 at 10:27 AM Asitiss

   Hey! I just noticed you did removed “strongest”. Nice! :).

   I think it might be good to explian what Group 1 means. That it includes all known carcinogens. The next Group includes probable or possible carcinogens.

   But it’s your blog….. 🙂

   Thanks Gerard.

   
   
5. on January 18, 2010 at 4:17 PM Siarlys Jenkins

   I infer that if a contraceptive were developed which was NOT a carcinogen, or if other carcinogens not on this list are available on the market today, nobody has any objections?

   
   
6. on January 18, 2010 at 9:30 PM Mary Catherine

   SJ
   Catholics (at least those who actually believe in and practice their faith) would still be against contraceptives.

   For example, there is a method of regulating births which is completely safe and natural and that is Natural Family Planning.

   But like anything, NFP can be misused – it can be used contraceptively.

   Catholics consider that a couple may only use NFP to legitimately space their children for the health of the mother and baby and to delay conception for a SERIOUS reason.
   What is somewhat open-ended is serious and the couple must with a properly formed conscience decide the matter.

   I may have missed explaining this adequately but I’m sure Dr. G can expound further.

   
   
7. on January 21, 2010 at 4:02 PM Siarlys Jenkins

   Precisely my point Mary Catherine. Adherents of the Roman Church would denounce contraception even if it were not carcinogenic. So what is the point of the information that certain contraceptives may be carcinogenic? Is the point to scare people into avoiding contraception because they might get cancer, rather than to teach the moral superiority of refusing contraception as against the law of God?

   I’m not sure what the point of NFP is, if it is NOT to be used contraceptively. Last discussion I heard it mentioned, Erin Manning said that it is OK for Catholics to use NFP to space out or even limit the total number of children in the family.

   
   
8. on January 22, 2010 at 2:28 PM Mary Catherine

   the POINT of NFP, SJ is to help both the mother and baby (babies)

   it is helpful to not have a baby every year
   for some women like myself, breast feeding worked to space my children
   for other women, it doesn’t
   thus NFP can give a woman a natural healthy way to space her children and help her body recuperate during the post-partum, nursing period

   it also has excellent benefits for the couple and their relationship
   the man learns to think about his wife and children and not about his needs all the time
   the woman learns about her body as does her husband and also must consider her husband during this time

   don’t knock it if you haven’t tried it – it works! 🙂

   and we do need to know about the harm OC’s do, whether we support their use or not
   it is once again, a case of science (reason) supported by faith!

   
   
9. on January 22, 2010 at 2:29 PM Mary Catherine

   thought you might like this Dr. G:

   http://www.contraceptionjournal.org/article/S0010-7824(09)00346-1/abstract

   
   

Comments are closed.