Sunday, October 17, 2010

Now the pinks are against us too?

So, now it seems that those who can't get pregnant or get pregnant later in life have a greater risk of getting breast cancer. So, in honor of Breast Cancer Awareness month, I just wanted my infertile friends to know that.

I'm honestly not sure how legitimate this info is; it's from a group called the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute and I saw it on Google news. The thing that's so crazy is the headline: "Here is why having a baby can reduce breast cancer risk" - as if you should simply have a child so that you don't get it.

It has something to do with something called lobules, and the higher octane, "non-cancer" lobules are only present when you're pregnant. Just chalk up on more crappy side effect of not having a baby. While you're boobs will still look great and not sag from being full of milk for months on end and having a babe suck all the perkiness out of them, they will have a bigger chance of giving you cancer.

So, infertilies, check those boobs.

1 comment:

  1. It's true. It's one reason (and I hope no one takes offense to this) that spaying is recommended for female dogs who won't be bred. Unspayed females who never have a litter are at higher risk of developing breast cancer than those who've had pups. Gosh, I always knew it'd come in handy to have dog breeder friends.

    Of course, there are also those like me with (almost) POF, who have no estrogen and are at low risk of developing breast cancer. We just get osteoporosis and have heart attacks.