Deepundercover

From www.lukeford.net:

Dennis Prager says on his nationally syndicated radio show: The line that is used most to support a woman's right to abortion - that a woman can do what she wants with her own body - is an entirely false argument. An abortion destroys something that is in her body. It's not her body. The most right-wing kook is not against women getting taboos, shaving their hair, etc... The moral argument against abortion is protecting the unborn.

But what about breast implants? Silicone breast implants were banned for all women except those who'd had masectomies. But if silicone implants were dangerous, why were they allowed for those with masectomies?

NOW, the National Organization for Women, has come out against silicone breast implants. This proves they don't care about women's rights to do what they want with their own body. NOW should say - tell women what the dangers are with breast implants, and then let them make their own choice.

NOW doesn't like women making themselves attractive for men.

Millions of American women have had breast enlargement in the past decade.

DP: I am for anything that science can do to make people, particularly women, more attractive. Looks are the powerful way that women attract men.

I don't like breast implants. They don't look or feel good. Too hard.

All the female callers who got implants were happy with their decision.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Too little is known about the long-term health risks of silicone breast implants for U.S. regulators to consider allowing them back on the market, health and consumer groups said on Monday.

The United States banned silicone implants for most women in 1992 amid a controversy over whether they caused chronic diseases, but at least one company has applied to sell them again.

The National Organization for Women, consumer group Public Citizen and others want the Food and Drug Administration to delay its review of any applications until longer studies are completed.

Arguing that many problems do not appear for years after implantation, the groups want the FDA to require clinical trials following women for at least seven to 10 years, NOW President Kim Gandy said in an interview. The agency currently is reviewing about two years' worth of data, she said.

``Two years of data is not going to give you any valid information so that women will know what's going into their bodies,'' Gandy said.

In the early 1990s, many women alleged silicone implants led to serious health problems. But a 1999 Institute of Medicine study found silicone implants did not cause cancer, lupus or other chronic disorders, although they can rupture and present other problems.

Since 1992, silicone implants have been available only through clinical trials. Saline-filled implants remained on the market, but are not as popular. More than 300,000 U.S. women got breast implants last year, according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.

Robocop

your shit would be so much better if you could decipher when DEEPUNDERCOVER is writing a news story, cut-and-pasting between transcripts from other sites, or the rambling stream of consciousness that seems to emerge.

Robocop

bump the gossip whore