Birth Control Gives Cancer to Women

The relationship between birth control (particularly hormonal methods like oral contraceptives) and cancer risk (including tumors) is complex and well-studied. Hormonal contraceptives, especially combined oral contraceptives (containing estrogen and progestin), influence hormone levels that can affect certain cancers. 

Research shows both increased risks for some cancers and protective effects for others. The overall balance often leans neutral or even beneficial for long-term cancer risk in many users, though individual factors like duration of use, age, and specific formulation matter.

 Increased Cancer Risks Associated with Hormonal Birth Control

Hormonal contraceptives are linked to modest increases in risk for certain cancers, particularly during current or recent use. These risks typically decline after stopping.

- Breast cancer — Current or recent use is associated with a small increased risk (around 20-30% relative increase in many studies). For example, a large analysis found a relative risk of about 1.20 for current/recent users compared to never-users. This risk rises with longer duration of use and returns to baseline within about 5-10 years after stopping. Recent 2025 studies highlight variations by progestin type, with some (like desogestrel) linked to higher risks than others (like levonorgestrel). Absolute risk remains low in younger women due to the rarity of breast cancer in premenopausal ages (e.g., roughly 13 extra cases per 100,000 women per year in some cohorts).

- Cervical cancer — Longer use increases risk, partly due to hormonal effects and potential interactions with HPV (the main cause). Risk may rise by about 10% or more with extended use, though this is influenced by screening and HPV status.

- Liver cancer — Rare associations exist with long-term use (e.g., hepatocellular carcinoma in some older data), but recent reviews suggest limited or no strong link in modern formulations.

 Protective Effects Against Certain Cancers

Hormonal birth control often reduces risk for several cancers, with benefits persisting long after discontinuation.

- Ovarian cancer — Use reduces risk by about 30-50%, with greater protection from longer duration. This effect lasts for many years post-use.

- Endometrial cancer — Similar strong protection (around 30-50% reduction), especially with prolonged use, persisting decades after stopping.

- Colorectal cancer — Evidence shows a modest reduction (around 15-20% lower risk in meta-analyses), though not all studies agree on duration effects.

Overall lifetime cancer balance in past users is often neutral, with increased risks for breast and cervical cancers offset by reductions in ovarian, endometrial, and colorectal cancers.

 Key Considerations

- Progestin-only methods (e.g., mini-pill, implants, IUDs like Mirena, injections) show similar patterns to combined pills for breast cancer risk in recent data — a small increase during/recent use — but may offer comparable protective effects for gynecological cancers.

- Risks are generally small in absolute terms, especially for younger users, and must be weighed against benefits like pregnancy prevention (which carries its own risks) and non-cancer advantages (e.g., reduced ovarian cysts, lighter periods).

- The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies combined estrogen-progestogen contraceptives as Group 1 carcinogens (carcinogenic to humans) based on evidence for breast, cervical, and liver cancers, but also notes protective effects.

Sources:

- National Cancer Institute (NCI): Oral Contraceptives and Cancer Risk (updated overview of observational studies showing increased breast/cervical risks and decreased ovarian/endometrial/colorectal risks).

- American Cancer Society: Birth Control & Cancer overview (2025 update on methods raising/lowering risks).

- Collaborative Group analyses and meta-analyses (e.g., on breast cancer relative risks ~1.20 for recent use).

- Recent cohort studies (e.g., Swedish 2025 data on formulation-specific breast cancer risks; UK nested case-control and meta-analysis on progestogen-only methods).

- IARC Monographs on combined hormonal contraceptives (Group 1 classification with balanced evidence).

Jesse Jackson dead at 84

The Rev. Jesse Louis Jackson Sr., a towering figure in American civil rights, politics, and moral leadership, passed away on February 17, 2026, at the age of 84. He died peacefully at his home in Chicago, surrounded by family members, according to statements from his loved ones and the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition he founded. No specific immediate cause was detailed in initial announcements, though Jackson had long battled a rare neurological condition known as progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), initially misdiagnosed as Parkinson's disease, which had significantly affected his health and mobility in his later years.

Born on October 8, 1941, in Greenville, South Carolina, Jackson emerged as a protégé of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., participating in key civil rights campaigns of the 1960s, including being present in Memphis at the Lorraine Motel when King was assassinated in 1968. An ordained Baptist minister, he channeled his faith into activism, founding Operation PUSH (People United to Save Humanity) in 1971 and later the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, which advocated for economic justice, voting rights, and opportunities for marginalized communities.

Jackson's views were deeply rooted in social gospel Christianity, emphasizing justice, equality, and uplift for the poor and oppressed across racial lines. He built a "rainbow coalition" that united Black, Latino, white working-class, and other underrepresented groups in pursuit of shared economic and social progress. A fierce critic of systemic racism, poverty, war, and inequality, he ran groundbreaking presidential campaigns in 1984 and 1988 as a Democrat, becoming the first African American to mount a serious, competitive bid for the nomination. In 1988, he won 11 primaries and caucuses, securing millions of votes and reshaping the Democratic Party's approach to inclusivity and coalition-building.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson's views on homosexuality (and broader LGBTQ+ issues) and abortion evolved over his long public life, often reflecting tensions between his Baptist ministerial background, his commitment to civil rights and social justice, and the practical demands of Democratic Party politics.

On homosexuality and LGBTQ+ rights: Jackson was a pioneering advocate for equal rights and protections for gay and lesbian people, especially notable in the 1980s when such stances were rare among major political figures. He became the first major-party presidential candidate (in 1984 and 1988) to explicitly include support for LGBTQ+ rights in his campaign platform, calling for an end to employment discrimination, increased AIDS funding and research during the crisis, and lifting the military ban on gay service members. In his famous 1984 Democratic National Convention "Rainbow Coalition" speech, he was the first speaker at a national convention to mention "lesbians and gays," declaring that "the Rainbow includes lesbians and gays" and that no American should be denied equal protection under the law. He spoke at the 1987 National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights (the only 1988 Democratic candidate to do so) and consistently framed LGBTQ+ equality as part of the broader fight against discrimination. By 2012, he strongly supported same-sex marriage equality, praising President Obama's endorsement and likening the push for it to historical struggles against slavery and anti-miscegenation laws. He argued that discrimination against any group harms all, and that equal protection must extend to LGBT people, including the right to marry the person of one's choosing. While acknowledging traditional religious teachings that view homosexuality as sinful (and the challenges this poses for some faith communities), his public positions prioritized civil rights, non-discrimination, and inclusion over personal moral judgments on sexual orientation.

On abortion: Jackson's stance shifted markedly. In the years immediately following Roe v. Wade (1973), he was outspokenly pro-life. He called abortion "genocide," compared it to the dehumanization in slavery ("the name has changed, but the game remains the same"), endorsed a constitutional amendment to ban it, supported the Hyde Amendment restricting federal funding, and wrote in 1977 that human life is sacred as a gift from God, beginning at conception, and that society cannot casually take it without moral consequence. He emphasized that politicians often favored abortion funding over aid for the poor and born children. However, by the time of his 1984 presidential run (and continuing through 1988 and beyond), he adopted a pro-choice position aligned with the Democratic Party platform. He described himself as personally morally opposed to abortion ("not pro-abortion") but supportive of women's "freedom of choice" and the right not to have private religious or moral views imposed via public law or government interference. He came to back keeping abortion legal, including federal funding in some contexts, arguing that the focus should be on supporting families and the poor rather than restrictive laws.These positions highlight Jackson's broader philosophy: extending human rights and dignity to marginalized groups while navigating the intersection of faith, justice, and electoral realities.

His oratory was legendary—passionate, prophetic, and rhythmic—often drawing from biblical themes to call for moral renewal and "keeping hope alive." Jackson remained a vocal advocate into his later years on issues including police reform, economic disparity, international peace, and human rights, even as his health declined. He stepped down from leading Rainbow/PUSH in 2023 due to age and illness but continued to inspire through his enduring example of faith-driven service.

As a Baptist minister whose life was dedicated to Christian principles of love, justice, and redemption, Jackson's legacy reflects a profound commitment to the Gospel's call to serve "the least of these."

Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord.  

And let perpetual light shine upon him.  

May his soul, and the souls of all the faithful departed,  

through the mercy of God, rest in peace.  

Amen.  

May the Lord comfort his family, friends, and all who mourn this giant of faith and justice.

It Begins In The Womb

Life begins in the womb. This simple truth, grounded in embryology and basic biology, stands in stark contrast to common claims made by some pro-abortion advocates that a fetus, embryo, or zygote is merely a "blob of cells" or not truly human until birth. Such assertions are not supported by science or logic. Human development unfolds in continuous stages, starting from the moment of conception, and the language we use to describe pregnancy often obscures this reality.

From the instant of fertilization, when a human sperm unites with a human egg, a new human organism comes into existence. This single-celled entity, called a zygote, possesses a complete human genome—46 chromosomes unique to the species Homo sapiens—and begins directing its own growth and development. Standard embryology textbooks, such as those referenced in developmental biology, describe this as the beginning of a new human being. For example, the zygote undergoes cleavage to form a morula, then a blastocyst, which implants in the uterine wall. By the third week, the embryonic period begins, with the formation of the neural tube, heart primordia, and other foundational structures. From weeks 9 onward, the developing human is termed a fetus, continuing maturation until birth. These are not arbitrary labels but scientifically recognized stages in the life cycle of a human organism.

Human females conceive and gestate only human offspring. A woman does not produce canine puppies, feline kittens, or undifferentiated cellular masses that magically transform into humans at some later point. The offspring is human from the start—genetically, biologically, and taxonomically. Claims that reduce the early human to a "blob of cells" ignore the organized, self-directed development that distinguishes a living organism from mere tissue. A skin cell or liver cell is human in origin but lacks the intrinsic potential to develop into a complete human being. The zygote, embryo, and fetus do possess this potential and actively realize it.

Human life progresses through stages: infancy, childhood, adolescence, adulthood, and old age. The prenatal stages—zygote, embryo, fetus—are simply the earliest phases of this continuum. Development does not confer humanity; it unfolds within an already human entity. To suggest otherwise introduces arbitrary criteria disconnected from biology. If humanity begins at birth, what magical property does passage through the birth canal bestow? Oxygen levels? Location? These are not scientifically meaningful markers for the onset of human life.

Everyday language often perpetuates confusion. We casually say a woman is "expecting" a child, that she "has a child on the way," or that parents are "bringing a child into the world" or "welcoming a child to the world." These phrases imply the child does not yet exist or occupies some separate realm, awaiting arrival like a traveler from another dimension. In reality, the child is already here—alive, growing, and present within the womb.

Consider an analogy: We do not claim the heart or brain exists outside the world simply because they reside inside the body. The organs are fully part of the living person, integrated and functioning within the organism. Similarly, the unborn child is not in limbo or en route from elsewhere. The womb is not a wormhole or portal to another spatial dimension; it is the natural environment where human development begins and proceeds. The child is already in the world, nourished by the mother, responding to stimuli, and advancing through developmental milestones.

Phrases like "on the way" or "bringing into the world" may stem from cultural habit or poetic expression, but they carry implications that clash with scientific accuracy. They subtly reinforce the notion that the prenatal human is not fully "here" or fully human, which aligns more with ideological preferences than with embryological facts. Precision in language matters, especially on topics with profound ethical weight. Calling the developing human a "baby" or "child" from early on reflects biological reality rather than diminishing it.

To be clear, acknowledging that human life begins at conception does not automatically resolve all ethical questions surrounding abortion. Questions of rights, bodily autonomy, personhood, and competing interests remain complex and deserve careful consideration. However, the foundational biological claim should not be muddled by euphemisms or misrepresentations. Science shows continuity: a zygote develops into an embryo, which develops into a fetus, which develops into an infant—no abrupt transformation into a human occurs at birth.

Public discourse would benefit from greater accuracy. Instead of "expecting," we might say "nurturing" or "carrying" a child. Rather than "on the way," we could note the child is "already developing." "Welcoming to the world" could shift to "welcoming into visible life" or "celebrating birth." These adjustments align speech with science, reducing cognitive dissonance and fostering clearer thinking.

Ultimately, the womb marks the beginning—not the prelude, not the waiting room, but the origin—of each human life. Denying this requires overriding established embryology and logic with rhetoric that prioritizes convenience over precision. By embracing accurate language and biology, we honor the reality of human development from its earliest, most vulnerable stages. The child is not arriving; the child is already present, growing, and deserving of truthful recognition.

Questions Pro-Choice Advocates Can’t Answer: Unresolved Tensions in the Abortion Debate

Below is a blog-style post titled "Questions Pro-Choice Advocates Can’t Answer," designed to challenge pro-choice and pro-abortion positions with thought-provoking questions rooted in science, philosophy, ethics, and theology. The questions focus on inconsistencies, moral implications, and biological realities that pro-choice arguments often sidestep, maintaining a respectful yet critical tone. The post draws on empirical data, logical reasoning, and Christian perspectives, with sources listed at the end for credibility.

---

Questions Pro-Choice Advocates Can’t Answer: Unresolved Tensions in the Abortion Debate

The pro-choice movement champions bodily autonomy and women’s rights, framing abortion as a personal decision free from interference. With millions of abortions yearly—63 million in the U.S. since Roe v. Wade (1973), per Guttmacher Institute—it’s a stance with real weight. But beneath the slogans lie questions that defy easy answers—about life’s start, rights’ balance, and moral consistency. On March 25, 2025, as we reflect on justice and humanity, here are ten questions pro-choice advocates can wrestle with but can’t fully resolve without dodging or deferring. These aren’t gotchas—they’re probes. Can you answer them without tripping over your own logic?

1. If Life Doesn’t Begin at Conception, When Does It Start—and Why There?

Science says a zygote’s DNA is unique, human, and alive—46 chromosomes kick off at fertilization (Moore, The Developing Human, 2015). Pro-choice folks often pivot— “it’s not a person yet”—but where’s the line? Viability (~24 weeks)? Heartbeat (6 weeks)? Birth? Each shift’s arbitrary—why’s 23 weeks less human than 25? Psalm 139:13—“You knit me together in my mother’s womb”—nails life’s start. What’s your marker, and what makes it stick?

2. Why Does a Fetus Have No Rights When Its DNA Is Fully Human?

A fetus has its own genetic code, blood type, potential fingerprints—distinct from mom (Sadler, Langman’s Medical Embryology, 2019). Pro-choice says her body trumps, but why’s a human organism with unique traits not a rights-bearer? If a drunk driver kills a pregnant woman, it’s double homicide (e.g., U.S. Unborn Victims of Violence Act, 2004). How’s that human in law but not in abortion?

3. How Can Abortion Be a ‘Right’ If It Ends Another’s Existence?

Bodily autonomy’s the rally cry—“my body, my choice.” But abortion stops a beating heart—50% of U.S. abortions occur post-6 weeks (Guttmacher, 2021). If rights clash—mother’s vs. fetus’s—why’s hers absolute? “Thou shalt not murder” (Exodus 20:13) weighs both lives. How do you justify one’s death as another’s liberty?

4. Why Is Viability a Cutoff When It Depends on Technology, Not Biology?

Pro-choice leans on viability—Roe’s old peg, now ~24 weeks with NICU tech. In 1973, it was 28 weeks; in 1900, none survived pre-term. If personhood hinges on machines, not inherent traits, why’s a 23-week fetus in 2025 “human” but not in 1925? Jeremiah 1:5—“Before I formed you… I knew you”—grounds worth in being, not tech. What’s your fixed point?

5. How Do You Square Abortion With the Hippocratic Oath’s ‘Do No Harm’?

Doctors swear to heal, yet abortion ends life—1.5 million U.S. abortions yearly (Guttmacher, 2023 estimate). A fetus isn’t a tumor—it’s a developing human (ACOG, fetal development stages). If harm’s the metric, how’s terminating a healthy pregnancy not a breach? “Love your neighbor” (Matthew 22:39) includes the unborn—where’s the ethics fit?

6. Why Allow Abortion for Convenience but Not Infanticide?

Roughly 90% of U.S. abortions cite social or economic reasons— “not ready” (AGI, 2005 survey). If a newborn’s a burden too, why’s killing it murder but a 20-week fetus fair game? Both breathe (lungs or placenta), both depend. “Suffer the little children” (Matthew 19:14)—how’s timing the moral pivot?

7. How Can You Deny Fetal Pain When Science Suggests It’s Real?

Studies show fetuses react to stimuli by 20 weeks—pain pathways form earlier (Derbyshire, BJOG, 2006). Pro-choice dismisses it—“not conscious”—but preterm babies get anesthesia in surgery (AAP, 2016). If a 24-week fetus flinches, how’s it less human than a newborn? “I praise You, for I am fearfully made” (Psalm 139:14)—why ignore the signs?

8. Why’s a Woman’s Choice Absolute but a Man’s Role Ignored?

Pro-choice exalts autonomy—her call, her body. But conception’s a duo—dad’s DNA’s half the mix. If he wants the child but she aborts, his voice is nil—yet he’s liable for child support if she keeps it (U.S. family law). How’s that equal rights? Genesis 1:27—“male and female He created them”—balances both. Where’s his say?

9. How Do You Justify Late-Term Abortions When the Fetus Could Survive Outside?

At 24 weeks, survival’s 50%+ with care (Rysavy, NEJM, 2015)—yet late-term abortions (1.3% of total, Guttmacher) still happen, often for “health” vaguely defined (Doe v. Bolton, 1973). If it’s a “clump of cells,” why’s it viable? Luke 1:41—“the baby leaped in her womb”—sees life early. What’s the cutoff logic?

10. If Abortion’s Not Murder, Why Does It Haunt So Many Women?

Post-abortion trauma’s real—40% report guilt, depression (Coleman, Journal of Psychiatric Research, 2011). If it’s just tissue, why the grief? Pro-choice says “stigma,” but why’s regret so raw? “Godly sorrow brings repentance” (2 Corinthians 7:10)—conscience whispers truth. How do you explain the weight?

The Challenge

Pro-choice might counter—“it’s complex” or “science isn’t morality.” But these questions cut deeper—life’s start, rights’ clash, ethics’ core. On March 25, 2025, as Lent calls us to justice, “Test everything” (1 Thessalonians 5:21) probes both sides. Christianity’s got a stance—life’s sacred from conception (Jeremiah 1:5). Pro-choice? Slippery slopes and shrugs. Can you answer these without dodging the unborn’s cry? Share your take—I’m listening.

Sources:

• Moore, Keith L. The Developing Human. 2015.
• Sadler, T.W. Langman’s Medical Embryology. 2019.
• Guttmacher Institute. Abortion Statistics. 2021-2023.
• Derbyshire, S.W.G. BJOG. 2006.
• Rysavy, M.A. New England Journal of Medicine. 2015.
• Coleman, P.K. Journal of Psychiatric Research. 2011.
• American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). 2016 Guidelines.
• Bible (RSV): Psalm 139:13-14, Jeremiah 1:5, Matthew 19:14, etc.

---

This post poses ten questions challenging pro-choice logic, using science, ethics, and scripture to highlight unresolved issues.