Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: GovernmentShrinker
The article says she didn't have children until she was 40. It doesn't say she didn't try to have children until she was 40. The article doesn't give us the necessary details about when she started trying to conceive: could have been 10 years earlier, for all we know.

She "hadn't realized"? --- as you yourself pointed out, the possibility of that being something other than a rhetorical hyperbole is vanishingly remote. I think it's possible you're taking one throw-away line which gives far from a complete picture, and using it as an excuse for expansive derogatory speculation.

27 posted on 10/28/2009 4:22:20 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning."-Gilda Radner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]


To: Mrs. Don-o

The quote from the article is “I could kick myself in the butt for waiting until I was 40 to have children.” Sure sounds to me like she *waited* until she was 40 — not clear if she ever actually had any. Either she actually “didn’t realize” or she really just didn’t care because her career was more important to her (a much more plausible assumption). Oddly, there is no mention as to whether she’s ever been diagnosed with breast cancer, whether she ever took oral contraceptives, or whether her “waiting” involved any abortions.

The whole notion that childbearing is something women should pursue early and often as a way to avoid breast cancer is insane and offensive. The increase in breast cancer rates from delayed or omitted childbearing is clear but small, and most women who choose to delay or omit childbearing are doing so because they’ve decided that they have some other priorities (in many cases, as traditional as wanting to make sure they’ve found a man who’s really good husband and father material, and that they want to spend their lives with and raise their children with).

There is NO scientific evidence that having abortions increases breast cancer rates, despite exhaustive research on the matter, including a solid study from Baylor University medical school, which is hardly known for harboring an abortion-promoting agenda. Anyone who is still running around promoting this notion is rightly regarded as an ideologically-driven quack. If somebody, someday actually produces some real scientific research showing such a link, even in some small subset of women with other key co-factors required, it will be worth discussing, but that hasn’t happened. Angela Lafranchi has in fact never published any medical research, ever, on any topic. Not even as a second or fifth or tenth author, much less as a lead author. The only publications that show up for her in PubMed are 3 opinion pieces in an obscure, ideologically-driven legal journal, and an opinion-based comment (i.e. letter to the editor) in Lancet Oncology. In other words, she’s not a medical/scientific researcher at all, yet she’s running around claiming that all the real researchers in this field are part of a conspiracy: “federal agencies and academicians are participating in the suppression of information about the heightened risk of breast cancer” (from the abstract of her most recently published diatribe in the legal journal).


29 posted on 10/28/2009 5:35:29 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson