Comment and information on timely matters.

A legal precedence has been set in Queensland but not one we can rejoice about or be proud of.  Conception has now been legally defined as referring to the implantation of the fertilised egg.  That’s right — you didn’t start you life when you actually started your life (ie when the sperm and the egg united), you started your life when you were implanted apparently.  There is little logic to this, but then, logic seems to have little to do with it.

One has to wonder “what” is actually being implanted if not a tiny growing human person?  That little person started his/her life journey when that one single sperm united with one single egg.   If ‘it’ isn’t a “conceived child” from the moment that union occurred, then why would they be implanting “it”?  Reading the news article, it sends a cold shiver down one’s spine — not only does the anti-life industry restructure the meaning and use of words in the case of euthanasia and abortion, but now we are seeing a flow-on effect in relation to the legal system.  One hesitates to wonder where society’s re-meaning of words will end.

That little child, created back in 2008 was already 3 years old when he/she was implanted but there will also be no recognition of that.

The single most avoidable  risk factor  for breast cancer is...The article "Pink colours the path of a dread journey" printed in the online Brisbane Times (22.10.12) was penned by Maxine Morand.  Morand was a minister in the Brumby government and a member of EMILY's List who was turfed out in Victoria's state election.  To be a member of the female-only EMILY's List, one must agree with abortion up to the day of birth.

Currently she is the CEO of Breast Cancer Network Australia and one wonders how much effort will be put into research between the abortion/breast cancer link.  An article written by a doctor some years ago stated that 20 years ago, a doctor doing his rounds in hospital would find only older women being treated for breast cancer — now, the age is devastatingly young.  What has changed?  Let's see…

Morand states in her article 'The average age of women diagnosed with breast cancer is younger than other common cancers affecting Australians, such as prostate and bowel" — this should be reason for serious investigation as to the "Why?".

She further writes, 'For most breast cancers there is no known genetic or inherited mutation or family history' — again, what is being done to investigate the "Why?".  Surely this is cause for alarm and serious investigation?

Could one reason be something that pro-lifers have known for a very long time — that abortion, particularly abortion of a first pregnancy, is the common cause?

Putting the immorality and emotion of abortion aside for a moment, let's look physiologically at the explanation for this.  In simple terms, when a female becomes pregnant, her hormones rise substantially higher.  These hormones cause changes in the breast tissue as the breasts change towards their final stage of producing breast milk for babies.  If these changes are artificially truncated by abortion, it leaves the breast with many undifferentiated cells and it is these undifferentiated cells that are prone to causing breast cancer.

Note that we are not saying that every women who has had breast cancer has had an abortion, but what we are saying, is that every women who has had an abortion has an increased risk of breast cancer.

There is an old expression that says, "God always forgives, humans sometimes forgive, nature never forgives."  Perhaps abortion isn't the panacea that it seems — and nature, in her unforgiving way, is telling us that.  So no matter how many bridges we adorn with pink lights or how many pink badges are sold, until there is full recognition and serious prevention of abortion, women will lose their lives to breast cancer.

Having a baby and a number of subsequent babies, particularly at a younger rather than older age, is a good safeguard against breast cancer due to the breast cells being allowed to fully mature.

Reported in an online article (27.7.12) “Batman massacre' claims 13th victim” we read the tragic news that a pregnant woman had been shot in the horrific events that took place at the midnight screening of the Batman movie in Colorado, USA.  Whilst she is lucky to have survived, her unborn baby was not so lucky.

The opening sentences of this online article (and numerous others) read as follows:  “The Aurora Dark Knight shooting has tragically claimed a 13th victim after pregnant survivor Ashley Moser suffered a miscarriage.  Miss Moser was eight weeks pregnant when a gunman burst into a movie theatre in Colorado on Friday, July 20, killing 12 people and injuring 58 ...  ... While Miss Moser herself was badly injured after being shot in the abdomen and neck, her unborn baby had miraculously survived.  But a family statement has revealed Miss Moser, who remains critically injured, suffered a miscarriage after surgery today.”

Without for one minute wishing to detract from the sadness and tragedy of what has happened, it is always with dismay that we find that the value of an unborn baby in any given media article seems to hinge on the where the media wants our sympathy/empathy/sadness to fall.  If the article was about a woman wanting an abortion, or who had an abortion, the word ‘foetus’ would have been used!