October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, a time that we turn our attention to a devastating disease that can potentially strike one out of every nine of our mothers, aunts, wives, sisters, cousins, daughters, and friends. Naturally as we focus on this terrible disease we concern ourselves with raising money to fund research for a cure. This is as it should be. However, precious little attention is paid to getting out the word on what the scientific community has already discovered relative to prevention.
We know with absolute certainty that oral contraceptives (OC’s) and abortion both raise a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer. Renowned breast surgeon Dr. Angela Lanfranchi of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, along with City University of New York Professor of Endocrinology Dr. Joel Brind explain the mechanism:
Prior to a first full term pregnancy (FFTP) the cells that comprise the lobules of the breast are immature and cancer-prone Type 1 and Type 2 cells. Under the influence of the high levels of estrogen in OC’s and during pregnancy, the lobules of the breast roughly double in number. This results in a doubling of the number of cancer-prone Type 1 and Type 2 cells. In pregnancy, it isn’t until the third trimester under the influence of the hormone human placental lactogen that the immature cells mature into cancer-resistant Type 3 and Type 4 cells.
Read the details in this stunning pamphlet here.
The science is clear that the earlier a woman bears children, and the more she nurses, the greater her protection from breast cancer. The science of the past fifty years is also abundantly clear that having an abortion prior to a FFTP allows for the proliferation of the cancer-prone Type 1 and Type 2 cells, while terminating the pregnancy prior to the onset of the third trimester’s protective mechanism that converts these cells to the cancer-resistant Type 4 cells leads to increased incidence of breast cancer.. The risk of breast cancer in women having an abortion prior to a FFTP ranges from 40% to 90% in most cases. In girls under the age of 18 with a family history of breast cancer the risk becomes incalculably high.
Other institutes devoted to getting the word out about breast cancer in relation to OC’s and abortion are the Polycarp Research Institute, under the direction of Chris Kalenborn, M.D.; and The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, under the direction of Ms. Karen Malec. Malec’s website is loaded with links to the scientific data and refutations to the lies told by pro-abortion apologists such as Dr. Louise Brinton of the National Cancer Institute whose own research through the years has shown the link between abortion and breast cancer, and who convened a panel in 2003 to deny the validity of fifty years of research showing that link.
The full story on Brinton’s duplicity here.
Were all of that not enough Susan G. Komen for the Cure has been donating millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortions and OC’s in the nation. Their claim is that PP provides mammograms (which aid in diagnostics but not the “Cure”). More on this here. In funding PP, Komen is contributing to new cases of breast cancer, a fact they steadfastly refuse to acknowledge. The truth, however, is that PP dispenses OC’s like candy. They encourage a lifestyle of delaying childbirth while pumping young girls and women full of the OC’s that raise their risk of developing breast cancer. Their services and the concomitant oncological sequellae consistently described in the scientific literature are completely at odds.
Though I quote statistics, these are just numbers that do not truly convey the gravity of Dr. Brinton’s duplicitous behavior, behavior that is nothing less than a betrayal of women by denying them the truth that needs to inform their informed consent to abortion and the use of OC’s.
Therefore, in honor of women, in honor of the hundreds of researchers who have been besmirched by Brinton and her cronies, I shall publish the results of one research paper/editorial per day beginning tomorrow and will do so every single day until I have exhausted my library of papers sometime in December or January. I shall publish the complete reference including researchers names and affiliated institutions, a synopsis of what they did, the hard numbers from the results and the authors’ conclusions. They will all be stored in the “Breast Cancer” folder in the “Categories” panel to the right.
I am deeply indebted to Ms. Karen Malec, President of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer for her generous time and efforts at bringing me up to speed on this topic, both in long telephone conversations and in sharing with me her library of scientific literature, which has saved me over a hundred hours of research and library time.
As the nation returns from summer vacation and October looms large, the pro-life community can do much by spreading the word about Dr. Lanfranchi’s and Karen Malec’s institutes that aim at prevention, and can do much by helping to fund their efforts at that ounce of prevention which is worth a pound of (Komen’s) “cure”. This year, please encourage all whom you know to help fund these two great institutes in their efforts to prevent this scourge in women, rather than forever mopping up Planned Parenthood’s mess. As the reader will see daily in the months to come, Malec and Lanfranchi hold the key to this scourge.
No, abortion does not raise your likelihood of getting breast cancer.
Even the Surgeons General under REPUBLICAN presidents admit this.
[…] Breast Cancer Awareness: An Ounce of “Prevention” is Worth a Pound of “Cure” « Coming … […]
Question — what does the latest scientific literature say about the link between early miscarriages and breast cancer?
Hi L.,
Gerard discussed the reason why miscarriages don’t carry the threat of breast cancer as abortions do in this post and interview:
https://gerardnadal.com/2010/04/16/my-interview-on-abortion-breast-cancer-link-in-fathers-for-good/
What he says is in line with what I have read up on regarding miscarriages.
I enjoy your responses. You and I are often on the same page.
-D.
Dr. Chris Kahlenborn, M.D. has done research on the link between abortion and breast cancer, as well. There’s another doctor, who’s name I can’t remember who has done research on the topic as well.
Here’s further information on Dr. Kahlenborn:
http://onemoresoul.com/contraception/risks-consequences/breast-cancer-abortion-and-the-pill.html
http://www.lifeissues.net/writer.php?writerID=013
http://www.lifecanada.org/html/newsletter/vol1/no5/1_5_5.htm
The reason I asked about the latest data is that I know new research is being done all the time, and that, to put it unscientfically, hormones are very tricky things.
Many women who miscarry produce low levels of hormones (and this seems to be both a cause and an effect, case by case), but some miscarriages seem to be due to higher-than-normal production of estrogen.
In Japan, for instance, breast cancer is still very uncommon, despite a huge spike of abortions (probably even under-reported) after the war. Yet, across the Pacific, breast cancer rates are climbing among Japanese-American women, which suggests to even unscientific me that all kinds of complex factors are involved.
In fact, the Japanese were one of the first to recognize an increased rate of breast cancer following induced abortion.
A 1957 study published in Japanese Journal of Cancer Research demonstrated that women who had breast cancer had a 3fold increase in pregnancies that ended in abortion.
A 1982 study (Nishiyama) demonstrated that women in Japan have a greatly increased relative risk (>+2.5) of developing breast cancer if they have had previous abortions.
Research demonstrates that women in Japan who have abortions are at greater risk for bc. However, these women also have a lowered risk because they have a lower “background risk” than do American women (ex. diet).
The interesting thing is that the risk for increased breast cancer arising from abortions was well known by 1970 – the time when most western nations were considering legalizing abortion.
The fact that this information was with held is criminal IMO.
And the oft-cited Nishiyama study examined less than a 1,000 women in only one rural prefecture. I know that study well, because my OB/GYN here cited it when she told me after my own spontaneous abortion that I faced a much higher risk of breast cancer in the future, because I had not gone through a full-term pregnancy at the time. (The 1957 Segi study similarly sampled only a relatively small group of women.) This was before the Daling study came out in 1994.
The number of abortions in Japan peaked in 1955, if I’m not mistaken, and has greatly declined since. There was no corresponding spike in the breast cancer rate here. It is still so uncommon that there’s not much prevention aimed at it, and it often goes undiagnosed until the later stages.
To be more specific — Japan still has a very low breast cancer rate compared with Western nations, although it is on the rise (and while it’s still rare, the rise is very dramatic because of the low base number). It began rising in the 70’s and is still rising today even though the abortion rate has been trending downward, suggesting that dietary changes (or other yet-to-be-determined environmental factors) are likely behind it.
Heavier Japanese women seem to be at a much higher risk for it.
And the lovely national health insurance here doesn’t even cover preventive mammograms.
[…] Breast Cancer Awareness: An Ounce of “Prevention” is Worth a Pound of “Cure” « Coming … […]
L.,
Great questions. We need to be clear that breast cancer has several associated risk factors, including genetics and oral contraceptive use. These studies on the effects of abortion control for all of the other variables between the case and control groups.
It is also worthwhile to note that cancers often take decades to develop after exposure to mutagens and carcinogens and require a complex series of immune system events in the process. So in this regard, cancer is a lagging indicator of the risk associated with exposure, in this case, abortion.
If abortions have peaked and are in decline, you may not see any effects for a decade or more.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Embrace Activism, G. Dillard and BreastCancerAwarenes, Gerard M. Nadal. Gerard M. Nadal said: Breast Cancer Awareness: An Ounce of “Prevention” is Worth a Pound of “Cure”: http://wp.me/pJSAY-Q1 […]
OC,
Bipartisan political appointees are not at issue on this blog. Here, the data do the talking. Surgeons General have no doubt quoted Dr. Louise Brinton’s ideologically driven 2003 NCI position paper that denies the ABC link. Yet Brinton just last year listed abortion and OC’s in her most recent paper as known risk factors for breast cancer.
I am presenting the data from the papers, along with the commentary on those data by the authors. I then analyze both the data and the author’s comments. I leave it to the gentle reader to formulate their own opinion.
Political and ideological consensus do not always withstand the harsh glare of scientific data.
Many point to the increased risk factors of 30%-40% in most papers as statistically insignificant, despite the 95% confidence intervals. Yet, each one of those women in the 30-40% (and higher in some studies) is a real victim of breast cancer whose cancer was caused by the experience of abortion.
Many cite the tight repeatability of these numbers as evidence of statistical noise. Again, despite a 95% CI. In reality, the tight reproducibility of the numbers in most studies is a strength, not a weakness. Reproducibility in different labs is the gold standard of credibility.
Here is where politics enters the fray. If there were two brands of condoms available: Roman and Spartan, and Spartan brand consistently showed a failure rate (tearing) of 30%-40% over Roman brand condoms, they would go out of business. CDC and FDA would be all over them for this appalling risk factor in the age of HIV. However, abortion is a political sacred cow. Surgeons General are loathe to assail it, and even more loathe to assail duplicitous individuals such as Dr. Louise Brinton. They go along to get along and tend to pick their battles carefully.
Again, on this blog the data do the talking. If the data indicate no link, I would be the first to rise up and say so. Sadly, that’s not the case.
And women are dying because of it.
“It is also worthwhile to note that cancers often take decades to develop after exposure to mutagens and carcinogens and require a complex series of immune system events in the process. So in this regard, cancer is a lagging indicator of the risk associated with exposure, in this case, abortion.”
agreed.
we understand the physiology behind abortion and the development of breast cancer.
It doesn’t mean that EVERY woman will go on to develop breast cancer but there is no doubt that induced abortion is NOT a natural process for a woman’s body and is highly damaging to women.
This fact was known as I mentioned earlier but was conveniently ignored, at the time abortion was being legalized.
Years of ingesting hormonal carcinogens will eventually take it’s toll.
The best thing a young woman can do is to have babies at a younger age and to breastfeed those babies.
Her body is made to have babies and not to have years of periods or to have her body tricked by oral BC to believe that it is pregnant.
Of course this is not a politically correct viewpoint for feminists who view pregnancy as little better than slavery.
“Of course this is not a politically correct viewpoint for feminists who view pregnancy as little better than slavery.” —>
You might be surprised to hear that there are plenty of die-hard feminists (including me) who don’t regard pregnancy as “slavery,” and also think there are better ways to plan our families than putting unnecessary chemicals into our bodies.
(On the other hand, I dye my hair, which is probably an even less valid reason to expose myself to unnecessary chemicals!)
“(On the other hand, I dye my hair, which is probably an even less valid reason to expose myself to unnecessary chemicals!)”
Ahh…
But only her hair dresser knows for sure. Besides, I don’t believe hair dyes have made it onto WHO’s Group 1 carcinogens, the most dangerous and deadly. Estrogen has. The protective effect of human lactogen (in the third trimester) in driving the differentiation of breast lobule cells to the cancer resistant form Type 3 and Type 4 cells is God’s/ nature’s way of protecting women against the effects of the high levels of estrogen that occur in pregnancy.
the fact is though, that motherhood AND pregnancy have been consistently denigrated over the past 30 years by vocal and prominent feminists, to the point that most young girls do not see motherhood in a positive light.
it is considered by many to be “wasting” one’s education if a woman desires mostly to be a mother only.
I personally have experienced this despite being very well educated and the young women of my daughters’ generation are now experiencing it first hand – they often do not tell strangers or those remotely removed that they aspire to being a mother first. 😦
Thank you Dr. Nadal for describing the effect of lactogen. 🙂
Mary Catherine, you have actually just described my (ironically pro-life) mother, who told me I was “wasting my education,” during the years I was a stay-at-home mom.
But I think that “most young girls” today actually DO see motherhood in a positive light — lots of them want to combine motherhood and careers, which they will find out is harder to do than it seems, and not for everyone.
Most people who consider themselves feminists are (or plan to be) parents. The kid-hating ones are the extremists, and extremists of ANY kind seldom speak for the majority.
Isn’t motherhood a career? Sadly it seems that many of us continue perpetuating the myths society has created in the last 30 or so years……
Motherhood is one of the greatest career choices….. that only women are given the opportunity to pursue…..
I smell a lawsuit…..
AMC, I am perpetuating no myths here. It is possible for a mother to have a career in addition to motherhood, just as it is possible for a father to have a career in addition to fatherhood. And while a father can’t give birth, a parent of either gender can devote his or her life entirely to raising his/her children.
The only myth that women (of my generation) were handed was that “having it all” would be easy. Like childbirth itself, individual experience is going to vary greatly.
L.,
The women of our generation were handed a steamer trunk full of myths, contrary to your claim of only one.
Some beauties:
Abortion is safe when made legal.
There are no reproductive sequellae.
There are no emotional/psychiatric sequellae.
There is no link between abortion and breast cancer.
Oral contraceptives are safe.
Condoms prevent STD’s
I’ve written about it all on this blog, linking to mainstream scientific data. Sexual “liberation” has led hundreds of millions into the enslavement of STD’s, HIV/AIDS, unplanned pregnancy, abortions in the BILLIONS, increased divorce rates, increased psychiatric symptoms, increased gynecologic complications, increased miscarriage and sterility…
And women have borne the brunt of it.
We’ve regressed a long way baby.
I would have to argue with that, and say that overall, women are still far, FAR better off than they were in my own grandmothers’ lifetimes.
I would not trade my own sexual liberation for the “security” of the past, nor would I ever want to raise my daughter (or sons) in such a world.
I would instead pick the present day, and navigate each slippery slope as it arises.
L.,
I don’t want to sound indelicate, but how many of our grandmothers were sexually unhappy? Mine never confided their sex lives in me. Did yours?
I was very close to my mother’s mother, and I only knew her when she was a chaste widow. But she I had many intimate conversations about personal things.
(She was a devout Catholic. I think part of the mysterious reason I retain shreds of my Catholic identity have much to do with honoring her memory.)
She worked nights as a waitress, and her husband worked days at a factory (and died young, at 50), so she was unable to have the large family she wanted — they had just two children, because that was all God gave them. Their “infertility” was due to working-class poverty and limited educational and occupational opportunities rather than any physical problems.
But within her lifetime, observing some of her friends’ situations, my grandmother changed her mind about a lot of things. She changed her mind about divorce, for one — her own mother-in-law had left an abusive man (and because she couldn’t afford an annullment, she was unable to remarry in the Church, so never received anymore sacraments).
Based on her observations over her lifetime, she changed her mind about whether married couples should be permitted to use contraception, or have sterilizing operations. Also, her daughter (my mother) began taking hormonal birth control not to control family size (though it apparently did), but to help with other medical problems.
While she said she personally did not condone homosexuality, she believed that even those who openly identified as gay should have basic civil rights (alas, she died before I knew her views on whether these would include marriage or not).
She was saddened that her own son left the Church and chose not to marry but rather to live with his girlfriend, but she welcomed the girlfriend into our family nonetheless.
In short, she left for me a blueprint as to how to navigate the modern world — and with a perception that even though many modern changes were not for the good, that the modern world was far superior than the world of the recent past in which she was raised.
Gerard, you have open a whole other can of worms. 🙂
didn’t you know that the world would have us believe that EVERYTHING revolves around sex these days.
I personally do not think things have gotten all that much better for women.
Women work just as hard or maybe harder today than they did in my mother’s era. Job opportunities are better but that’s about it. Health care is better but that would have improved anyways.
Women now get to work outside the home AND inside the home without much increased help from men. In fact, many men are now out earned by women. The lack of help in the domestic area is THE main reason women in Italy will not have more than one child.
As usual, women have taken more responsibility in the area of work and income without much help from their men.
Most women no longer have the “choice” to stay at home – which is where most of them would love to be.
Women are generally solely responsible for birth control. In fact, men don’t even have the requirement of having any measure of self control anymore nor of even making a quick trip to the convenience store to get a condom.
It is widely expected by men that their women and women in general with be taking that lovely little pill every morning (or using the patch or the IUD or getting shots). 50 years after the pill, we still don’t have a pill for men. Interesting???
Instead of feminists callling men in on changing their behaviour, men have given feminists the magic pill that tricks a woman’s body into believing it is pregnant every month. Even better, they got it approved without rigorous testing and any worrisome side-effects were conveniently ignored by the male scientists who designed the pill and the feminists who hate their bodies and didn’t care.
The expectation is that women will be sexually available to any man both outside of and inside marriage. But especially outside of marriage. No need for self control. if the woman balks, the man walks. So the women put up and shut up. ah yes, liberation! for whom I ask??? 🙂
And marriage? why bother? Why would any man marry today? He doesn’t need marriage to get sex. And the woman doesn’t need marriage to have children. The only people who need marriage are children and who gives a damn about them anyway?
Feminists have fought for all the wrong choices. They have betrayed their bodies and their femininity. Most of all they have betrayed the women’s movement which never had the goal of subjugating feminine biology and destroying maternal instinct.
The security you have is false. And the security your children have is also a lie because it’s built on selfishness and using other people with no room for sacrificial love. 😦
and if you dont’ believe me today about the sex and dating thing:
ask ANY woman of any age, who desires to remain chaste until marriage and you will find a woman who has few if any dates.
I know 15 year olds and 52 year olds who are dumped for this reason and this reason alone.
yup, that’s liberating!
Have a good evening. 🙂
“In fact, many men are now out earned by women.”
Wait, is that supposed to be a problem…?
Funny, I have never met any of these “feminists who hate their bodies.” But someone once called me that, in those exact words, after I said how much I hated breastfeeding.
And the security my children have is no “lie,” and is built on honesty.
Mary Catherine, maybe you should start a dating service. I smell an opportunity there.
One more matter upon which my grandmother changed her mind was higher education for girls.
She and her husband initially refused to pay for my mother to go to college, figuring it was a luxury they couldn’t afford and that my mother was just going to get married and stay home with children, as most women did. They said they needed to save for her younger brother’s education, reasoning that a man would have to support a family someday.
All by herself, my mother paid for a degree in chemistry at a small Catholic women’s college, while living at home and working part-time. (She did marry and stay home with children, and later returned to work in the new field of computers.)
My grandmother changed her mind on all this when my grandfather died. She realized the hard way that at any moment, a woman in even the best marriage might suddenly have to support her family.
So I was raised with the very different expectation that whether I decided to be a stay-at-home mother someday or not, I would be encouraged to go to college.
It wasn’t a matter of “having it all” — it was more a matter of being practically prepared for the realities of every-day living. Having an educatiuon and a career means more options and opportunities, not fewer.
L,
it is if men are no longer paid a family wage.
Can you live on $40K per year? Most families cannot. So mom must go out to work AND that means she cannot have as many children.
Most women indicate they would love to stay home with their children and would like at least 1 more child.
Feminist policies have made sure both do not happen.
And I too encourage my children to attend college. But women should have real choices in life. They do not.
They CAN stay home but this entails extreme personal sacrifice.
Many men are not willing to sacrifice in this way.
Its fine to be glib with it all L. But you aren’t a young woman who might have the intent to preserve her person and wish to marry and raise a large family.
These young women DO exist.
Sadly women of your generation blow them off – gasping at why any woman would want to “go back”.
Mary Catherine, it might surprise you to hear that my own 13-year old daughter has no other aspirations than to be a wife and mother.
I will certainly push her to continue her education, in the interest of keeping all her options open and protecting herself in a worst-case “what if” scenario. But if she decides to stay at home someday, I won’t view it as “wasting her education.” (My mother-in-law….now, that’s a different story. She thinks we’re wasting our money, educating an unambitious girl.)
My grandmother was a working mother, too, as I said — she was a career waitress. She wanted to be a nurse, but had to leave high school during the Depression. She was a “working girl” before she ever heard of feminism.
Feminism, for her, meant that women could be promoted to restaurant manager — too late for her, she said, but she saw younger women move up to jobs that would have been unthinkable when she started out in restaurants. Women could take out bank loans to start their own small businesses without a husband, father or son to co-sign for them — again, unthinkable when she was younger.
Nope, I don’t want to go back. And I don’t understand why anyone else would, but to each her own.
(Oh, and I make more than my husband. So I am a bit sensitive whenever anyone generally has a problem with that scenario. It’s amazing how many people do! )
Your Grandmother was a career waitress, not a bad path. No work to bring home at night, everyday is different and cash. The instant cash flow creates instant gratification!
Maybe no mountains to climb as a waitress but not all of us need mountains…
(Oh, and I make more than my husband. So I am a bit sensitive whenever anyone generally has a problem with that scenario. It’s amazing how many people do! )
I don’t have a problem with it.
but it is a problem for the traditional family with the mother wanting to stay at home and nurture and raise the children.
It’s also harder to have children if the spouse that has them can’t stay home to have the babies. Which is what the feminists had in mind all along – to free women from the bondage of pregnancy – force them out to work.
My beef is not about women working so much as it is about women working as the only viable option and about the fact that women who CHOOSE to have babies and lots of them are viewed as pariahs.
Women have always worked thoughout history but the difference is that most of the time work was an add-on to the family which came first. Many modern women no longer have the time to put family first. Families suffer because women are the heart of the home despite what the feminists would like us to think.
Feminism is all about choice but apparently only the choice to abort, contracept and to shed the bondage of marriage and childbearing. You do not hear many (if any) feminists hailing the virtues of the Duggars lifestyle and willingness to have many children.
My grandmother would have made an excellent nurse, so I regret she was unable to pursue that. But she loved waitressing — she was a painfully shy person, so one might thing she would have problems with approaching tables of strangers everynight, but there was something about her role, and her uniform, that gave her confidence to speak to them. She was able to meet all sorts of people. Gov. Ella Grasso once signed a paper placemat for her.
She started out working in Child’s restaurants in NYC in the ’30’s, but for the last years of her career, she worked at Howard Johnson’s.
And yes, the cash tips were nice.
Mary Catherine, a woman’s work time was “an add-on to the family,” for a working-class woman. It was vital income that helped support the family.
While my grandmother enjoyed her job, I honestly don’t know if she would have worked outside the home, if not for economic need (and she did stay at home for a few years, when her babies were small). The lack of economic choices for women — or men — who would prefer to be home raising kids and not to be in the workforce is hardly new.
My grandmother was a “third wave” feminist (and anyone who wants to read more can Google that) before the term existed — she didn’t believe in fitting a cookie-cutter mold of what a “woman’s libber” should be. Instead, she made personal decisions based on what was best for her family.
Mary Catherine, if feminism is all about “only the choice to abort, contracept and to shed the bondage of marriage and childbearing,” then why are you arguing with an avowed feminist who’s been married to her partner for 19 years and (willingly, eagerly) had three children?
Just as some Christians don’t count Catholics among their own, there will always be feminists who espouse only the narrowest view of what feminism is. But the majority of us “third wavers” have well-rounded lives, and respect the choices of others, particularly when it comes to childbearing.
“But the majority of us “third wavers” have well-rounded lives, and respect the choices of others, particularly when it comes to childbearing.”
Really? Of course, by well rounded you mean women who have a job outside of the home – implying that stay-at-home mothers are what?? one dimensional women with no ambition?
The experience of most stay at home moms is not generally positive – they are denigrated for staying home and in many cases having many children. Even more so if they have some kind of religious belief – then they are seen as completely disturbed.
Women who have strong secular leanings and promote abortion rights have no such tolerance and are quite proud of it because they see women who focus on home as working against their “new” society of independent women who have a set of rights no human being should have.
If these women were so accepting, our culture wouldn’t continue to mock Christian families and very specifically women who have chosen a different path. Our culture does this in movies, songs, and literature not to mention on talk shows, in the workplace, at workplace functions and in the mall. I have one friend in particular whose husband has been mocked at workplace functions because they have 4 children. This is very sad indeed. 😦
Try being the mother of 9 children in the supermarket and being told you are disgusting. It happens more often than you’d care to know. And it’s not restricted to the adults either.
You will have a very difficult time convincing me that modern women are respectful and tolerant of other women’s choices to bear more than 2 children and to focus their lives on their husbands and families.
MC,
When my wife became pregnant with our second, fellow academics took me to task for my irresponsibility vis the planet’s health. When she had #3, the rudeness gave way ti impudence and vitriol. My stock response was that these individuals ought to consider going to the George Washington Bridge, holding hands and jumping in order to make way for my children.
Of course, no takers on the suggestion. Thus the insincerity and cowardice of those who seek to deny life to millions.
sorry the above post has a typo in the name!
“Of course, by well rounded you mean women who have a job outside of the home.” –> Wrong! Please don’t tell me what I mean, or put words in my mouth. I actually mean, most third-wave feminists don’t concentrate solely on their careers outside the home, and some even delay or forego them to concetrate on their families.
“…respectful and tolerant of other women’s choices to bear more than 2 children…”
Gee, I’m a feminist, and I have three myself. And might have had more, except for the c-section thing.
When I was a stay-at-home mom, I was a member of a MOPS group (a Christian mothers’ group, open to all (http://www.mops.org/page.php?pageid=79&srctype=linklist&src=71). It was overall a great experience. But it was eye-opening in that I heard all of the ugly things that stay-at-home moms said about those “feminists” who worked outside the home, or who had “only” one or two kids. Looking down on other people’s choices goes both ways.
Finally, I will say that no matter what anyone does, there are always going to be people who criticize their choices.
I have “only” three kids? I must be one of those feminist “careerists.”
Or I have three kids, I’m overpopulating the planet.
We were married for four years before I agreed to have kids — what were we waiting for? Didn’t we know married couples who choose to be childfree were selfish?
In Japan, the average is one, so when I was out with my three, I got all the “Wow, you must have your hands full!” comments.
I have to say, I don’t think the modern world at large is very good at minding its own business.
Gerard,
I have friends whose husbands have met with such unbridled hostility from coworkers that they have kept the number of children either secret or openly lie about the number of children they have.
The other thing I have noticed is that people who tend to be feminist and thoroughly modern openly discuss their sex lives too – in front of everyone and feel very justified in telling you why they believe the have only had one little hothouse child or why they simply had to get their second abortion/tubes tied/their husband spayed etc etc…… 😦
Gerard,
There is no overpopulation problem. In fact, most of the developed world has the opposite problem: fertility well below replacement levels. The U.S. happens to be an exception, with fertility currently right around replacement levels, but this is largely due to the temporary compensating effect of a relatively large influx of conservative immigrants.
The west is on a path that is simply not sustainable, precisely because of low fertility. So, the correct response to your colleagues is that they are the irresponsible ones, who, by their unwillingness to step up to the plate and raise the next generation, are jeopardizing the furture of the west and the way of life for which our forebears sacrificed and fought so hard.
Some further reading:
http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070528_105313_105313
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6564
Mary Catherine, I have noticed the same thing in devout Catholic women — feeling very justified in telling everyone why they will have as many children as God gives them, why they will never get their tubes tied or use artificial contraception, etc. (I have even heard many impromtu lectures on why NFP is superior, and know more about some women’s ovulation than I ever wanted to know).
So I don’t think this is a “feminist” thing — I thing some people are just prone to “too much information.”
L, FAITHFUL Catholics SHOULD feel very justified in telling people why they will have as many children as GOD gives them.
Children use to be considered a blessing.
And FC’s have THE answer as to why a woman should never get her tubes tied or use contraception in any form
And all the better that you have gotten that impromtu lecture on the superiority of NFP. 😉
Most of my friends do this in a most charitable way.
There is THE TRUTH out there and it is knowable. Catholic teachings in the area of sexuality and sexual morality have been proven time and again.
This way you can’t say you weren’t told! 😉
Most faithful Catholics I know simply don’t go around talking about their sex lives as feminist liberals are apt to. FC’s have a definite sense of the reverence of sex, marriage and children and are appalled by the lack of in our liberal brothers and sisters.
“Most faithful Catholics I know simply don’t go around talking about their sex lives as feminist liberals are apt to.”
What is the difference, of being proud of one’s reproductive choices and sharing too many physical details of it with others? Yes, the philosophies are radically different, but to people who don’t want to hear about any of it, the end result is the same.
I would prefer not to hear the details of anyone’s reproductive choices, whether they are trying to have a dozen kids, or none at all.
I would prefer not to hear the details of anyone’s reproductive choices, whether they are trying to have a dozen kids, or none at all.
ah, BUT usually it’s the contraceptive types that initiate these conversations with
You have FOUR/FIVE/NINE children? **eyes rolling***
or
Are ALL those children yours? **disdainful look**
or
Haven’t you heard of TV? **snorting and laughing**
or
Your husband should get “snipped/neutered/spayed/the cut”. **anger, revulsion, disgust***
so I SAY
YOU better get use to us pushing back…..
IF people like this can accost us, they are gonna be told the TRUTH.
😉
I think there should be a truce. “Liberal feminists” (and everyone else) should promise never to discuss specific sexual acts, contraception methods or any feelings against large families, in exchange for never hearing any conversation in which cervical mucus is compared to raw egg white.
Honestly L, you KNOW this is not discussed in public.
I’m done with you on this thread. You’ve crossed the line again. 😦
Dan,
I have read both the articles you referenced.
The question is not whether anyone is listening anymore.
I think most countries know they are in trouble.
It seems that the question is how to interest women in having families again and couples in marrying?
Ladies,
I’m invoking my unique blend of modesty and Victorian prudery here and asking that we not discuss bodily secretions, save for the occasional runny nose during cold and flu season.
Similarly, mention or allusion to specific sex acts evoke dyspeptic responses from your humble host. Hearing of forum members discussing such matter has the same salutary effect of imagining mom and dad ‘doing it’. We do well to restrict ourselves to discussions of the methodological merits or demerits of the studies before us.
I have been away from home on some pro-life business these past days, and get rather restless being away from my family. Disharmony of this sort tends to add to the general unease that comes with being away from the family, so please, for the sake of harmony, may I suggest that you try composing your disagreements in Haiku. I realize that it tips the advantage toward L., living in Japan, but it is a great way of condensing one’s thoughts in a harmonious and civil manner 😉
Many thanks!
Too many children
Is like too many flowers,
Except….MY garden is closed. 😉
certainly Dr. Nadal.
@L:
Your 9:09 post
has proven my point.
I therefore,
rest my case.
😉
In the interest of total honesty, I will say that the women who made me listen (against my quite uninterested will) to the gory details of the Billings Ovulation Method happend to be evangelical Protestants, not Catholics. Have you ever heard of the “Quiverfull Movement?” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull
I guarantee its adherents are as strongwilled as any liberal feminist I have ever encountered in my life.
Mary Catherine,
There are a whole bunch of interesting questions around low fertility. But even without delving into those questions, it is very easy to make the point that those who look down on large families are way off base. In fact, if anyone ever tries to pull that stunt on me, I will make them wish they had kept their big trap shut. Those who have large families are the ones who will save our sorry backsides, if there is any chance left that we are going to be saved at all.
“Those who have large families are the ones who will save our sorry backsides, if there is any chance left that we are going to be saved at all.”
Dan, funny you should post this thought. When I was at Mass on Sunday, I was thinking that all of the children at church and all of the children serving Mass – ALL come from large families or young couples starting out their families and who are planning (God willing) to have large families.
it’s likely too late to save Western society. The US is lucky. It is the only western nation with a replacement birthrate.
What will become of Europe remains to be seen.