Oral contraceptive response

  • Thread starter Thread starter subject97
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

subject97

Guest
So today in biology we’re talking about cancer and we have to suggest a “course of action” for a woman who fears getting ovarian cancer. While looking through the facts on it and the things that could affect your chances of getting the cancer when it said that women who have been taking oral contraceptives for at least 5 years have less of a chance of getting ovarian cancer, which seemed odd to me, since i thought oral contraceptives were a group 1 carcinogen. I asked the teacher about it when she said, " oh no, that’s just the old stuff."

Is this true? or is she just mistaken? (if it’s the latter, then please supply some source of where it disagrees with her.)

here is the link about oral contraception decreasing ovarian cancer.
ocrf.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=748&Itemid=479

I got the idea that oral conception is a group 1 carcinogen from 1flesh.org
 
Oral contraceptives increase the risk of some cancers (like breast cancer), but decreases the risk of others (like ovarian cancer). It also vastly increases risk of clots and pulmonary embolism, high blood pressure and heart attack.
 
More young women are having strokes…

abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/young-women-strokes/story?id=15835224

Although there could be other risk factors, I suspect the media will not point the finger at the pill.

Strokes aren’t just grandma’s problem anymore. Alarming numbers of young women (even in their 20s!) are now suffering from strokes, according to a new study published in Neurology, the medical journal of the American Academy of Neurology.

blog.womenshealthmag.com/thisjustin/the-scary-new-health-risk-in-your-20s-30s-and-40s/

They do mention the pill in this second article.
 
Little known fact: An approved “oral contraceptive” is the word … NO!

St. Paul’s “suggestion” qualifies it’s use by married people though:
1 Corinthians 7:5 Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.
Click to expand...
6 This I say by way of concession, however, not as a command.
Click to expand...
:twocents:
 
PennyinCanada said:
More young women are having strokes…

abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/young-women-strokes/story?id=15835224

Although there could be other risk factors, I suspect the media will not point the finger at the pill.

Strokes aren’t just grandma’s problem anymore. Alarming numbers of young women (even in their 20s!) are now suffering from strokes, according to a new study published in Neurology, the medical journal of the American Academy of Neurology.

blog.womenshealthmag.com/thisjustin/the-scary-new-health-risk-in-your-20s-30s-and-40s/

They do mention the pill in this second article.
Click to expand...
No, unfortunately, it’s not just the pill. Our genetics and our lifestyle, including the way we eat, has raised the occurence of strokes. I’ve been on three different blood pressure meds now and I’ve never popped a birth control pill ever. Though my cholesterol is normal etc. These days it’s more expensive to eat healthy than to buy junkfood.
 
That combined estrogen-progesterone pills are carcinogens has been reported in an IARC monograph based on a stidy in 2005. I’m not sure if there are recent studies reversing such classification, but it appears that there hasn’t been any.

news.greenfacts.org/2011/01/the-iarc-who-report-establishing-the-cancer-risks-associated-to-combined-estrogen–progestogen-use-as-contraceptives-or-menopausal-therapy/

If one can plan his/her family as effectively using natural family planning methods without this cancer risk, I would never recommend OCP’s to anyone I care about.

humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/5/1310.full#abstract-1
 
subject97 said:
I asked the teacher about it when she said, " oh no, that’s just the old stuff."

Is this true? or is she just mistaken? (if it’s the latter, then please supply some source of where it disagrees with her.)
Click to expand...
The National Cancer Institute, which is ironically an affiliate of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, updated their website on March 21, 2012 to state the following Overall, however, the risks of endometrial and ovarian cancer appear to be reduced with the use of oral contraceptives, whereas* the risks of breast, cervical, and liver cancer appear to be increased**.*

More info here

.
 
That being said, keep in the back of your mind that a Catholic’s opposition to artificial contraceptives holds independent of medical effects. As Bishop Lori articulated last year, the Church is not opposed with such drugs being used for legitimate medical purposes. Ultimately, the immorality of OC’s are that they compromise what is a God-given gift, our very fertility, and seeks to dysfunction what is otherwise healthy and functional. It is a perversion of our gifts, and Catholics have a view of the body that is sacred, that it is a gift not to be abused.

And just my personal view – those who are fighting for the benefits of contraceptives are doing so with the full intent to use them as a means to facilitate their sex lives and are trying to sell the drug by way of some other effect. However, it is possible to find “contraception rights” supporters who fully admit they want it so they can have more sex.
 
There are so many women on the pill in the USA, that traces of the chemicals are found in the environment.
 
JABA said:
There are so many women on the pill in the USA, that traces of the chemicals are found in the environment.
Click to expand...
A (FSSP) priest at a pre-cana class at our diocese was discussing this and talked about how this is causing an increase in homosexuality.:eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top