New study: contraceptives cause cancer

The American Journal of Epidemiology has just published a study that finds that oral contraceptive use has been linked to increased risk of breast cancer.

How many young women today, who cheerfully take oral contraceptives because they want to have casual sex, are going to die early deaths because of that choice?

God bless, Annem

You needed a link to the study.

It really does depend on the incidence. If the chances are 1 in a million and they increase to 2 in a million, it’s a risk that may be worth taking, if the chances are 1 in ten and increase to 2 in ten, then the risk may not be worth taking.

The World Health Organization (WHO) reported in its July 29, 2005 press release that a team of scientists has determined that combined oral contraceptives (estrogen plus progestogen) and combined menopausal therapy are “carcinogenic to humans.” Menopausal therapy was formerly classified as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” It has been upgraded to a Group 1 classification, “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans.” Oral contraceptives received the same classification.


Have you a link to a medical source rather than an anti-contraception campaign group?

Go to the World Health Organization yourself and search it out.

Actually we need a link to the op’s ‘New study’ first.

Need a link. And there’s a big difference between there being a link to cancer and saying that they cause cancer. I wish people wouldn’t be so misleading on this site.

Do you think that women who take the pill are only interested in casual sex? Instead of judging people’s hearts, why don’t you pray for them instead. When my wife and I were first married, she was on the pill. At the time, I was young and ignorant of the Church’s stance on the pill, but she did not take the pill to just have casual sex. We were planning our family at the time and she was terrified of NFP because her mom got pregnant while practicing it.

So, why don’t you worry about your own sins before you go to judging the hearts of others.

While In understand your frustration, I don’t think the OP meant to judge anyone.

Just look at TV today - all the contraception commercials show cheerful young women apparently throwing all their cares away and embracing the lifestyle given by contraception - one that divorces the act of intercourse from the consequences.

While some young women may take the pill for a specific medical reason given by a physician, most IMHO take it for a reprieve of the consequences of sex - pregnancy. That is treating sex casually, don’t you think? Society tells us sex is nothing more than uniting various sexual organs for a pleasurable feeling. However, we as Catholic Christians, having the fullness of truth, believe it to be more than that. It is very sad that other Christians do not yet know of the beautiful teachings on human sexuality given to us by Christ through His church.

I think that is what the OP was getting at - it was a generalization, yes, but I don’t believe there was any malice intended.


The op mentioned use for ‘casual’ sex - since many users are, in fact, married and monogamous, does that mean that Catholics believe that all sex without the possibility of pregnancy is ‘casual’?

Well, the Church believes that sex is reserved for the marital embrace and has to be open to life, and that all of us, regardless of vocation, need to be chaste. One can have an improper view of sexuality and engage in unchaste acts even while in a monogamous marriage.
The Church believes that an improper view of sex can lead to mankind abusing each other’s inherent human dignity, yes, even within a marriage.

Which explains the op’s position - it’s not about ‘casual’ sex in the everyday use of the term but all sex where contraception is used.

Thanks for the clarification.

No, I understand clearly what was meant. Casual sex means just that. It’s casual. There’s no love involved. People have sex with whomever just to be having sex. That is judging people who have taken the pill that the sex involved is sex without love.

In today’s times, both husband and wife usually have to work to make ends meet and unlike in earlier times where a lot of the food was grown at home, it isn’t the case for today. Having an unplanned pregancy can cause an extreme financial hardship.

I’m not going to argue with the Church’s teaching because I have come to accept them over time growning as an adult. But we made the mistake of using contraception before. But our marital embrace was never “casual” and I find it that OP is judging people’s hearts.

Think about it for a second.

If contraceptives caused cancer at the rate you postulate it to be, then there would be an epidemic of breast cancer, easily traceable back to use of contraceptives.

Does this happen?

It’s reasonable to ask whether the OP intended to paint whether she intended to paint all users of oral contraception with the same brush, since she may have meant more than she said, based on the broader topic of the study. However, I think it’s uncharitable to assume that’s what she meant. She merely lamented those who use the pill for the purpose of casual sex. No cause for offense if you’re not one of those she’s lamenting.

I’m the uncharitable one? Instead of you answering for the OP, why doesn’t the OP respond with what he or she meant? Why classify just this one group of women with pill? Why not other groups of women who are either married and are trying to maintain the size of their family or women who are using the pill for medical reasons? Why are they not mentioned when speaking of the pill. I’m well aware of the intentions. It makes it sound that the pill is only used so women can have a good time with whomever they want.

How many young women today, who cheerfully take oral contraceptives because they want to have casual sex, are going to die early deaths because of that choice?

The above quote is stereotyping the pill with women just looking for a good time having casual sex.

Again, I’m not condoning the use of the pill because I know the Church’s stance on it and I admit that my wife and I made a mistake when we were younger by using it. But again, we must look at our own sins before we go judging the hearts of others.

Here is a link on a search I did on the journal in question.

Many more articles on the dangers of “the pill” that just this one article.

Of course, the liberal pro-death crowd will vilify these to as biased since it goes against their “population control” genocide agenda. Facts do not matter to them.

Who is really being biased? :cool:

originally posted by dotcomrefugee
If contraceptives caused cancer at the rate you postulate it to be, then there would be an epidemic of breast cancer, easily traceable back to use of contraceptives.

Does this happen?

Not necessarily as drug companies are very powerful and data gets twisted.

What we do know is that three recent major studies have been done on widely used Hormone Replacement Therapy(Progestin and Estrogen) by the National Institute for Health(.Please remember there was no such thing as hormone replacement therapy before that invention of the “pill”. Women simply saw menopause as natural but some women had difficulty with it.)

Here is an older article written by Betsy Shea Taylor (Sun Chronicle) on one of those studies…Please keep clicking on attached thumbnail until it is large enough to read.

2008 study -The original yahoo link on the latest study that I had posted on another thread seems to be missing. Here is a link to the thread.

Yes. You are attacking the OP not for what she actually said, but for what you think she means by it. Instead of assuming she meant the worst, it would be better to give her the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps simply asking, “Do you mean to suggest that all those who use the pill do so for the purpose of having casual sex?” If she answers yes, you’ll have a little firmer footing to attack that position. Or you could explain to her how the way she worded the question could be misconstrued as labelling all contraceptive users as seekers of casual sex.

[quote=Lee M]Instead of you answering for the OP, why doesn’t the OP respond with what he or she meant?

Certainly she should, but not everyone has ideal forum etiquette, whether because of deliberate action/inaction or because of inexperience… It may be she only visits the Secular News forum on occasion, and she doesn’t know how to check for threads she’s posted to that have new replies (bookmark
It may be that she is composing a reply and will get back to us. Or it may be that she has no interest in following up, or is unwilling to face the buzzsaw of your attack (in which case, perhaps she should consider whether this is the best forum for her, as words can get a little sharp).

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit