Tag Archives: Feminism

News

New peer-reviewed study links abortion and breast cancer

Leave a comment

The abstract of the paper is posted here. (H/T Jennifer Roback Morse)

Excerpt:

On multivariable logistic regression analysis, age (≥ 50) years (OR 2.61, 95% CI 2.20–3.11), induced abortion (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.38–1.99), and oral contraceptive use (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.48–0.74) were found to be associated with breast cancer risk as statistically significant independent factors.

These findings suggest that age and induced abortion were found to be significantly associated with increased breast cancer risk whereas oral contraceptive use was observed to be associated with decreased breast cancer risk among Turkish women in Istanbul.

These findings mean that women who have abortions are 66% more likely to develop breast cancer than women who don’t. And those who use oral contraceptives are 40% less likely to develop breast cancer than women who don’t.

More adult stem cell advances

ECM sent me a Telegraph article on adult stem cell research. (Source: Secondhand Smoke)

A lot of abortion supporters like to talk about all the medical advances we will have a few decades from now by using human embryos (which are persons) for medical research. But the news media doesn’t really want to report much on all the proven cures that adult stem-cell research give us today.

Excerpt:

British scientists have developed a stem cell technique which is being used by patients to avoid hip replacements, in a major medical breakthrough. Doctors in Southampton are using the pioneering technique, where a patient’s damaged bones are repaired using their own stem cells. Patients hailed the treatment, after many found they could walk normally again without any pain and without the need for hip replacement surgery. So far six patients have had the treatment with only one failure, doctors said.

Why should we pursue the medical program of Nazi Germany when we can have cures today without killing anybody?

News

New Scientist article shows why fathers are necessary for children’s well-being

2 Comments

Here’s a story from the New Scientist. (H/T Jennifer Roback Morse)

First let’s re-cap the old stuff:

Previous studies have hinted at the importance of fathers in child-rearing. Some have shown that girls reach puberty younger, become sexually active earlier and are more likely to get pregnant in their teens if their father was absent when they were young. Others have suggested that the sons of absent fathers display lower intimacy and self-esteem.

Now let’s get the new stuff:

Cells in pups deprived of fathers had a blunted response to oxytocin – the “cuddle chemical”, which is normally released during social interactions and pair bonding. They also had an increased response to NMDA, which is involved in memory.

The fatherless mice were also less interested in engaging with other mice. “Usually if you put two animals in the same cage they investigate and touch each other, but when we put two animals deprived of a father together they ignored each other,” says Gobbi. Her colleague Francis Bambico presented the work at the World Congress of Biological Psychiatry in Paris, France, in early July.

But according to this Telegraph article, it doesn’t seem as though research impacts public policy. (H/T Andrew)

Excerpt:

Women who undergo fertility treatment and their same-sex partners are now both allowed to register as parents on their baby’s birth certificates.

The move has been criticised for damaging the traditional notion of a family, which many people say is necessary for a healthy upbringing.

But ministers insist it is a step forward for equal rights.

Lord Brett, the Home Office Minister, said: “This positive change means that for the first time female couples who have a child using fertility treatment have the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts to be shown as parents in the birth registration.

“It is vital that we afford equality wherever we can in society, especially as family circumstances continue to change. This is an important step forward in that process.”

There are powerful special interest groups on the left whose whole purpose is to demonize fathers and destroy marriage. They want children to be raised by the state, (i.e. – by those who run the secular government). They think that government programs taught by strangers and designed by experts well-versed in all the isms of the left, are better for children than their biological parents.

Commentary

Are “de-facto” parents good for children?

1 Comment

ECM sent me this interesting National Review article about how courts are undermining the rights of children by breaking down traditional parental roles.

Excerpt:

This year, the District of Columbia Council passed a law allowing biological parents’ registered domestic partners to be presumed parents, and to be listed as such on the children’s birth certificates. The law also allows a person to be legally designated a parent if he consents in writing to the artificial insemination of his partner, or if he “hold[s] out” the child as his own—that is, presents the child as his to others. (D.C. already had a law allowing people to sue for child custody if they could show they had acted as “de facto” parents (D.C. Code 16-831.01).)

Then, last month, the Delaware legislature went even farther when it enacted legislation giving state courts the ability to designate a non-parent as a “de facto” parent (with all the legal ramifications of parenthood) as long as the biological parent of a child “fosters” a “parent-like relationship” between the non-parent and the child, and as long as the “de facto” parent has acted like a parent and bonded with the child in a way that is “parental in nature.”

The Delaware law completely untethers legal parentage from biology, marriage, adoption, and even the relationship between the adults who are the child’s legal “parents.” It also abandons the binary nature of legal parenthood by allowing three or more adults to be designated “parents” of a child at the same time.

The article goes on to explain why the court’s designation of de facto parents is a bad idea for children, who are increasingly having their rights to a happy childhood denied by courts. This is what Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse was concerned about in her recent podcast on family and marriage.

I think the bottom line here is that children do best when bonding to two opposite-sex parents who are biologically linked to them. That is the most stable, loving environment in which to have children. The left is sacrificing the welfare of children in order to cater to the needs of adults who don’t care about what is best for children.