I guess that's where we leave it then.Originally Posted by RBP
I guess that's where we leave it then.
Gotta agree with RBP on this one. Also i have seen her referred to as "brave" and "a hero". Bullshit. Like said she chose to have a surgery she doesnt need because she could get cancer. Hell just living in california gives you an 87% chance of cancer. What about the women that have to deal with this every day? For some the dont have the choice its do it or die. But they dont have millions and star in big movies so i guess they dont matter
This reminds me a lot of the civil war when the south was throwing dynamite at the north so the north got mad, lit the dynamite and threw it back..
for the irony of not being able to spell retarded.
Free on the NHSIf there was an 87% chance of you being struck by lightening tomorrow would you go outside?
I would.... and if there's a 87% chance of me missing the headshot in VATS, I'm still going for that headshotFree on the NHS
Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery?
I'm on the fence about this one....if you have the means to avoid cancer with an operation, why not?
On the other hand maiming yourself 'just in case' is not really the way to handle disease either
I may break my leg someday, I probably should just cut them off
FBD (03-30-2015)
A broken leg would heal - cancer killsI may break my leg someday, I probably should just cut them off
Don't quote me on this, but she probably had reconstruction along with the mastectomy, given that she could afford it. I was reading somewhere else where they said they tried to perform a minimally invasive mastectomy, or some shit like that, saving the nipple and as much tissue as they could. Either way, she'll probably have fabulous fake tits until the day she dies. She'll be 95 years old and wrinkly, flashing her fake teeny tits.
Doesn't really matter. We have record of her fabulous real tits in movies throughout the 90s.
Warning: The posts of this forum member may contain trigger language which may be considered offensive to some.
Music was better when ugly people were allowed to make it.
Not always, and the treatments for cancer have come a long way. This isn't the 1950's anymore where a cancer diagnosis is a death sentence. yes, there are some forms of cancer that are extremely deadly (pancreatic cancer for one), but there are many, many types that when caught in time are completely survivable.
and the screening methods to catch breast cancer early are always improving
I got into trouble with a group of women once having this discussion...my point was that if you have cancer and can completely go into remission by removing the breast, what's the big deal? It's not like boobs are penises....after nursing children boobs become decorations. Penises on the other hand serve a lifelong purpose.
I know it's a traumatic thing to have a mastectomy but there are worse things...
btw, I didn't get laid that night
I see both sides of the argument, but really, it hurt her to lose her mother to ovarian cancer, she didn't want to risk leaving her children without their mother, she saw that she was genetically predisposed to it. If you could avoid it by taking action early on instead of waiting to see whether or not it comes...
... but then again, her mother died of ovarian cancer, and she still has her ovaries and a 50% chance of developing ovarian cancer... not to mention all the other possible forms of cancer she could develop over time.
Her boobs, her choice.
Warning: The posts of this forum member may contain trigger language which may be considered offensive to some.
Music was better when ugly people were allowed to make it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
