The ABC Connection

What do I mean by the ABC connection? The Abortion - Breast Cancer Connection.

Isn't it funny how the 'pro-choice' feminists want all women to have the freedom to "choose," but they don't really care about women making a truly informed choice!

They only want the choice to be made based on their own promotion of a de-population agenda and to remove any short-term consequences for irresponsible sexual behavior.

But they have been deliberately quashing any and all references in the mainstream media to the undeniable connections between women who have abortions and breast cancer.

It is in fact a biological phenomenon that is perfectly explainable without invoking any kind of "pro-life" or "religous fundamentalist" type of argument. And these revelations are nothing new...

From AbortionBreastCancer.com

Scientists first observed in the 17th century that women’s reproductive histories impacted their risk for breast cancer when it was noticed that nuns were at high risk for the disease. Scientists surmised that childbearing provides women with increased protection.

Today’s medical experts agree that the best way women can reduce their lifetime risk for breast cancer is by: 1) Having an early first full term pregnancy (FFTP) starting before age 24; 2) Bearing more children; and 3) Breastfeeding for a longer lifetime duration. It’s undeniable that abortion causes women to change their childbearing patterns. It leads them to forego the protective effects of early FFTP, increased childbearing and breastfeeding. Consequently, scientists do not debate that it increases breast cancer risk in this first of two ways.

Despite these truths, there is not one cancer fundraising business that uses the phrase, "Abortion raises breast cancer risk." Not one of them has ever denounced Planned Parenthood for depriving women of the protective effect of childbearing or acknowledged that abortion contributes to the nation’s breast cancer rates at least in this way.

If childbearing reduces breast cancer risk, then choosing not to have that child means a greater breast cancer risk for the woman. Therefore, there is no debate among scientists that the woman who aborts has a greater breast cancer risk than does the woman who has a baby (assuming that her pregnancy lasts at least 32 weeks).

Fascinating stuff...

However, it's not just the fact that a woman that has an abortion never realizes the protection she gets from carrying a pregnancy to full term when she is young, there is another effect that occurs when a female becomes pregnant and has an abortion...

Abortion has been implicated with breast cancer in yet another way, however, and estrogen overexposure is the explanation for it. There is staggering evidence of an independent link between abortion and breast cancer. What this means is that a woman who has an abortion is left with more cancer-vulnerable cells than she had before she ever became pregnant. Biological evidence and more than two dozen studies worldwide support a cause and effect relationship. Fifteen studies were conducted on American women, and 13 of them reported risk elevations. Seven found a more than a twofold elevation in risk. Seventeen are statistically significant, 16 of which demonstrated a positive association. The term “statistical significance” means that scientists are at least 95% certain that their findings are not due to chance or error.

The evidence of a causal relationship between abortion and breast cancer isn’t only based on a statistical relationship either. Scientists also require biological evidence and a reasonable biological explanation before concluding that there’s a causal relationship. These requirements have been met.

In summary, when a woman becomes pregnant, her body chemistry changes dramatically. Her body produces massive amounts of estrogen in the beginning stages of a pregnancy, and part of that is to prepare the breast tissue to begin producing milk.

These biological facts are the basis for making the abortion/breast cancer connection:

The explanation for the independent link makes good biological sense. It remains un-refuted and unchallenged by scientists because it is physiologically correct.

A never-pregnant woman has a network of primitive, immature and cancer-vulnerable breast cells which make up her milk glands. It is only in the third trimester of pregnancy - after 32 weeks gestation - that her cells start to mature and are fashioned into milk producing tissue whose cells are cancer resistant.

When a woman becomes pregnant, her breasts enlarge. This occurs because a hormone called estradiol, a type of estrogen, causes both the normal and pre-cancerous cells in the breast to multiply terrifically. This process is called “proliferation.” By 7 to 8 weeks gestation, the estradiol level has increased by 500% over what it was at the time of conception.

If the pregnancy is carried to term, a second process called “differentiation” takes place. Differentiation is the shaping of cells into milk producing tissue. It shuts off the cell multiplication process. This takes place at approximately 32 weeks gestation.

If the pregnancy is aborted, the woman is left with more undifferentiated -- and therefore cancer-vulnerable cells -- than she had before she was pregnant. On the other hand, a full term pregnancy leaves a woman with more milk producing differentiated cells, which means that she has fewer cancer-vulnerable cells in her breasts than she did before the pregnancy.

In contrast, research has shown that most miscarriages do not raise breast cancer risk. This is due to a lack of estrogen overexposure. Miscarriages are frequently precipitated by a decline in the production of progesterone which is needed to maintain a pregnancy. Estrogen is made from progesterone, so the levels of each hormone rise and fall together during pregnancy.

For a thorough biological explanation of the abortion-breast cancer link, see this second website for the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, and click on its online booklet, “Breast Cancer Risks and Prevention.”

The fact that such scientific research is not widely known...despite having a "Breast Cancer Awareness Month" and the million and one charities and foundations supposedly dedicated to eradicating breast cancer only goes to show what the mainstream establishment and the feminist movement value more - there sacred sacrament of infanticide over the lives of the very women they supposedly care so much about.

Shouldn't every woman contemplating an abortion be educated on the biological truth that having one can increase the likelihood of developing breast cancer later on in her life?

Why wouldn't a pro-choice advocacy want women to know about the dangers of an elective procedure?

Answer: because the real agenda is global depopulation. Just as millions of babies are murdered in their wombs, so to are millions of women who are exposed to much higher risks of dying from cancer. It's a win-win situation for the global elite that want to reduce the number of proles...so that they can achieve there primary goal of environmental "sustainability."

Sick of Complaining?

An anonymous commenter wrote the following in my last post. She wrote a lot, so I will respond to each point in the "Fisk" style.

A woman who is sick of you complaining said...

I'm sorry but I feel the need to comment on this whole "regulated sex" shit. I've been reading the MRA blogs for the past few weeks, while most of the men post very valuable commentary, and make great points about feminism and how women act today, I can't understand why men don't understand where feminism came from.

If you've been reading MRA blogs for a few weeks, may I suggest you do even more reading? Perhaps you may actually educate yourself as to where feminism REALLY came from.

It is NOT some reaction to historical oppression of one gender by another as the revisionist feminists and Women's Study professors have brainwashed society into believing.

Feminism is the purposeful and deliberate indoctrination of an entire generation of females intended to break up the very foundation of society - the nuclear family.

Feminism has put forth the LIE that the Patriarchal model for ordering families as the building blocks of society is nothing more than men selfishly "oppressing" females for their own benefit.

In short, feminism was started by communist/marxist agent provacateurs that infiltrated the institutions of academia and the mass media to further a globalist, de-population agenda that involves evicting Father's from the homes to create as many single mother households as possible that are dependent on the State for subsistence.

Here are some quotations from prominent feminists, courtesy of the MRA blog, No Ma'am:

"Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism." - Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10

"A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised." - Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York, Random House, 1952), p.806

"The Women's Caucus [endorses] Marxist-Leninist thought." -- Robin Morgan, Sisterhood is Powerful, p. 597

Heretical Sex also offers excellent insight into the Feminist motivation to destroy the nuclear family: Why Did Feminists Attack the Family?

Are you all idiots. Have you ever wondered why women began to feel oppressed? Probably not, because you are men and you think to methodically and with no emotion at all. The idea that men should regulate the sexual activities of a woman is as stupid as women regulating male sexuality. No one is ever the property of anyone else, and as soon as men come to terms with this notion, the sooner the sexes will stop being at war. Women are just trying to break free from being owned as property. Just like a piece of land, men feel they can dispose of us at anytime, or trade up.

You poor, pitiful, brainwashed fool. The "Oppression" of the Patriarchal system was not that men OWNED women. It is the agreement between Men and Women for the benefit of the CHILDREN that are the product of their union. Here's some more reading for you if you are truly interested in understanding how feminism has tricked women such as you into believing that traditional marriage was "oppression."

Marriage is Fraud

Not to mention, before Feminism, men had no problem keeping a wife and having numorous affair. Women saw this made a consious decision to act against this, which is competely understandable. For every action there is a reaction, and the male population is totally ingoring this!
Don't you understand that women were just reacting to the way they were being treated....like property. As a survior of sexual abuse by numorous males, the notion that any one owns my body and should have access to it and any time he pleases is rupulsive and is probably why I have yet to be married at the age of 29. I am no man's property. I have a mind of my own. I think for myself and don't need a man to do it for me. Men are unable to get past the sex, because that's all they are programed to want. It has been stated by many MRA bloggers.

All of these things that you write, are answered in that last link I posted. But if you don't bother to read it, at least read this much from Rob Fedder's post at No Ma'am:

So, feminists are somewhat truthful when they claim that women were “owned” as chattel. A wife’s sexuality (NOT her person), was very much “owned” by her husband and it was in fact used as a means of production: The production of the husband’s own children.

But, as always, feminists are only capable of speaking in half-truths.

The part of the “women were owned as chattel” song leaves out the second verse, which is “and men were owned as beasts of burden.”

Marriage was a contract in which a woman traded her sexual reproductive ability for a man's economic labor ability. Marriage was NEVER a man "owning" a woman, lock. stock and barrel. He did NOT have carte blanche to do as he pleased or treat her as a slave.

Before the 1860’s, if a woman decided to leave her husband, she had to leave the children behind, which were a product of the marriage, because property rights dictated that he had “paid” for them, and thus they were his property, and not hers. He did not “own” her person, but in marriage he did “own” her reproductive ability and the products thereof.

The transferring of these “property rights” back to the woman, when in fact they were the basis of the economic contract of marriage, diminished the validity of marriage enormously. It is interesting to note that the divorce rate has risen steadily from this point onward.

Keep in mind, women have always had the ability and natural right to have their own children. No-one ever stopped a woman from shagging some knave in the bushes after he had been swilling mead in a medieval tavern. It may have been frowned upon by society, but illegitimate children have been born since the beginning of civilization. It was a social stigma that women should not do this because it was widely known that the woman would be bringing a child into the world under an enormous disadvantage if she and the child were not coupled to the labour (and discipline) of a father. But, she owned her sexuality and if she wanted to have children with it, she most certainly could.

But, the contract of marriage is, in every sense, the contract of a woman selling children to a man. The right of a man to “own” what he paid for was dealt a mortal blow in the 1860’s when he lost the previously unchallenged right to “own” what he had paid for in marriage, that being his children.

Now, all through up until the 1970’s, marriage was still viewed as a legal contract. It was a given that both parties had an obligation to uphold such a contract just as within any other economic or legal contract.

If you wanted to leave you still could. No-one was stopping you. But, as with any contract, if you breeched your contract you would be the one that was penalized for it.

If you wanted to leave and receive the benefits from the marriage, or rather, be compensated for the breech of contract of the other party, you had to prove they were at fault in order to sue for compensation. This makes sense, doesn’t it?

Therefore, there were many things which constituted “fault.” Adultery, alcoholism, mental insanity, cruelty, physical abusiveness amongst a host of others all constituted “fault.” If you were at fault, you could expect to lose your rights as set forth in the contract. But even so, if there was no fault and you still wanted to leave, no-one was stopping you. You were not put in jail for leaving, but you were found to be at fault for “abandonment,” and therefore lost all of your rights as set forward in the contract – and you would be liable for any “damages” caused by your “fault.”

---

But, in the 1970’s, the ever wise feminists declared that it was far too difficult to find fault in people’s complex personal relationships, and therefore “No Fault Divorce” was implemented, again with the aid of the heavy hand of the courts. (Odd, isn’t it? They have no troubles at all finding “fault” in cases of domestic violence.)

So what have we got left here?

WE HAVE A FRAUDULENT CONTRACT MASQUERADING AS MARRIAGE!

What was originally based on a woman “selling” a man the ability to have his own children and taking his surplus labour as “payment,” has become a woman having children of HER own and still taking a man’s surplus labour as “payment” for that which she is NOT selling. THAT IS FRAUD!

Perhaps now you can understand exactly what the institution of marriage was all about, and how the feminists have purposely subverted it by negating women's responsibilities to abide by the terms of it, while still holding men to it.

See, in today's divorce culture, Men are STILL held to the terms of exchange - they still have to provide economic labor in the forms of alimony and child support, while women can freely violate the marriage contract without losing that economic labor...yet the courts regularly take away what the man was SUPPOSED to gain in the economic contract of marriage - his children.

Men don't give a shit about what women think or do, just the pussy, and how to get it. And you males wonder why women have abandoned marriage and other conventional "wisdoms".

Actually, women by and large have not abandoned marriage the institution. They abandon "marriages" to specific males (to the tune of 70% of all divorces instigated by women...many times through no specific fault of the man's...only under the claim that she is "bored" or "not in love" or "unfulfilled" and she needs to "find herself.")

But you women all STILL want to get married. It is men going their own way and pursuing the eternal bachelor lifestyle who are abandoning the institution of marriage. That is because feminist-minded women such as yourself have decided that marriage is "oppression," and that you should all be free to use your sexuality in anyway you please, without penalty.

If that is what you believe is your ultimate definition of "freedom," than what is in it for a man to get married? If the marriage does not guarantee that a woman does not have to "oppress" her sexuality and sleep around at her will, than what's in it for us men to bind our economic productivity to a contract that you females won't keep, but we are forced to by the law?

Let me ask you males a question. What if someone owned you as property, and made all your choices for you, what if you were alienated and isolated because of children, husband and had no social interaction. Can you imagine a life like this? If you can, you are probably a woman. If you can't you're a man. So don't blame the feminist. They are only reacting to the confinment of the male establishment of the last hundred or so years. Come on guys, how long did you think women would be ok with being treated like shit? And don't give me that crap about women were treated well and already had power. Lies, lies, lies! I'm so sick of men complaining, now you finally know what it is like to be a woman and you hate it. You hate it because you know it's how women have been treated. Because to let yourself feel the emotion that women feel would be emasculating and lord know that you men can't have that, heaven forbid you have emotions. It would also force you to recognize that patriarchy is just as bad as matriarchy and you would fall from from your golden thrown and and land your ass on your pointy crown. What a sight that would be!

Look at all your bitterness and anger...it is all misdirected towards men and the institution of Patriarchy. Your indoctrination has been thorough.

Keep reading MRA blogs, and then perhaps you can de-program yourself and realize that the gender war you are so invested in has been the deliberate manipulations of people that do NOT want men and women to happily raise the next generation of children in happy homes...but only want to have control of the minds of society so they can consolidate and expand their power into the most personal sphere of anyone's life, the family.

Women's Watch Inc., Director is SHOCKED at sexism in US Politics

As ye sow, so shall ye reap, oh foolish feminists.

Helen McCaffery, the Director for Woman's Watch Inc., a Women's Advocacy Group, has written an article for the Philadelphia Inquirer in which she further promotes the mindless tropes of propaganda that are part and parcel to the shibboleth's of feminism.

The irony of her blind naivete is rather delicious...


From Palin Deserves Our Respect

I cannot predict who will win the presidential campaign, but I already know who will lose big: all women.

Of course, because in identity/gender politics, there is always a need to identify the victim class, so that they can be held up in the highest esteem. Truth doesn't matter, as we all know that in fact regardless of who will win the presidential campaign, the misandry of our family courts, divorce and child support system and the continuation of "affirmative action" policies that legislate preferential treatment for women will remain in full force...so of course, all women will lose big, dontchya know?

I realized this when I saw a 20-something male student who attends a class in the community college where I teach, wearing a T-shirt that read, "Sarah Palin is a C-." He wore it in public, in broad daylight, and without shame or even consciousness of what he was doing.

I took the time to advise him of the "error of his ways" and informed him of the consequences if he wore it to my class.

Shame? Consciousness of degrading a woman based on her physical appearance? Typical of the clueless feminist, who cannot even begin to understand that it was her precious movement's work to "free" women from the stigma of unregulated sexual behavior -- i.e "Patriarchal Oppression" that has resulted in our current society for which women are objectified and reduced to nothing more than the value of their physical appearance!

Also note her authoritarian prederliction to censor the misguided man's right to free speech, because it ran up agaisnt her own politicially correct sensibilities.

This encounter shook me right down to my socks.

So typical of a feminist, over-dramatizing and emoting in the extreme over such an inconsequential issue such as the subject matter of a T-Shirt a student is wearing.

Most of my adult life has been spent working for civil rights for all Americans, as a lawyer defending constitutional rights and now as a college teacher and director of a nonprofit advocating for the rights of women.

As a lawyer defending constitutional rights, shouldn't you be aware that we are all supposedly equal under the law regardless of gender? I guess it really is a stretch to expect feminists to possess even a miniscule iota of intellectual honesty.

It was the encounter with the young man that woke me up, but there were signs all along the campaign trail. First, with the candidacy of Sen. Hillary Clinton, who won 18 million popular votes from the people of the United States and was ridiculed, marginalized, and put in her place when she wasn't even offered the vice presidency slot.

Oh I see. Hillary was entitled to the VP slot, because of the 18 million popular votes...but because Barak Hussein Obama didn't offer it to her, it was a blow to the entire female gender! Women were ridiculed, marginalized and put in their place!

It's a good thing all you perfect little feminists are such useful idiots for the Democrat party...because they can screw you right in front of your faces and still count on knowing that come election day, you will all pull the appropriate lever and vote for the Donkey candidates, no matter how much they ridicule, marginalize and put you dumb feminists in your place!

But the really big attack on women occurred when John McCain selected only the second woman in history to be on a major-party ticket.

...

I thought Americans would be proud of her nomination, whether we agreed or disagreed with her on the issues. Was I in for a shock.

The sexism that I believed had been eradicated was lurking, like some creature from the black lagoon, just below the surface. Suddenly it erupted and in some unexpected places.

Only to a deluded, feminist useful idiot like yourself could have been surprised by the so-called "unexpected places" for which this sexism erupted.

Instead of engaging Palin on the issues, critics attacked attributes that are specifically female. It is Hillary's pantsuit drama to the power of 10. Palin's hair, her voice, her motherhood, and her personal hygiene were substituted for substance. That's when it was nice.

The hatred escalated to performers advocating Palin be "gang raped," to suggestions that her husband had had sex with their young daughters, and reports that her Down syndrome child really was that of her teenage daughter. One columnist even called for her to submit to DNA testing to prove her virtue. Smells a little like Salem to me. I was present at an Obama rally at which the mention of Palin's name drew shouts of "stone her."

"Stone her"? How biblical.

Notice she fails to even coming close to mentioning the source of these sexist and misogynistic attacks. It's the VERY leftist-liberal-progressive-Democrat contingent that is supposedly the champions of her precious feminist movement!

Didn't you idiots learn NOTHING from the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky affair? That as long as a liberal democrat votes for the right party and supports the appropriate feminist policies of unrestricted infanticide, they can get away with any kind of racist, sexist, bigoted behavior...especially if the target for such attacks is a right-winger-fundie-Republican-conservative?

Don't you know...the end justifies the means...

....sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette?

Ahhh...feminist useful idiocy is so entertaining to behold.

All this is at a time when women are regularly being raped as they try to cross the border into the United States; bloody, broken women haunt the emergency rooms of hospitals; and abuse and disrespect for women and girls is rising faster than bank bailouts. That is the atmosphere in which people, including women, choose to attempt to destroy a woman who is a legitimate political leader.

Agreement on issues is not required, but Palin merits respect.

Oh the irony. First, this TOOL invokes the spectre of dastardly, evil men everywhere who are brutalizing women wherever and whenever possible - but she fails to realize that it is the promotion of such mindless, baseless generalizations that have created the very atmosphere that empowers her fellow liberal-democrat-progressives to carry out this proverbial witch-hunt with regards to Mrs. Palin.

It is dismaying that misogyny and sexism are so excessively marbleized into our daily interactions that some of us cannot even recognize their existence when confronted with it or when staring at it directly in the mirror.

{Laughing my ass off}

You dumb broad. You cannot even bring yourself to mention the political party or ideology that is behind the very sexist and misogynist attacks you are decrying! Try and confront that first!

Mockery and vilification of women such as Palin should become just as taboo as race-based slams. Until then, women are the real losers.

In your distorted world view, there is no "Until then." Women will always be the real losers. How else can you maintain the current misandry codified in our system to advantage women everywhere, unless you continue to promote the lie that all women are victims?

Don't you know? Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia!