Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Pregnancy & ParentingPregnancy · 4 weeks ago

True/false: women who delay having kids until they’re 30-years-old or don’t have kids at all are at the highest risk for breast cancer ?

11 Answers

Relevance
  • Kelly
    Lv 7
    4 weeks ago

    False.

    I have read though the risk being greater for ovarian cancer for women who haven't had children or had them later in life.

  • Mark
    Lv 7
    4 weeks ago

    False,

    There I no health effects directly related to 

    having kids @ an older than average age range

    there's no actual proof to support your claim.

     . . . . . . . . . .

     . . . . . . . . . .

     . . . . . . . . . .

     . . . . . . . . . .

     . . . . . . . . . .

  • 4 weeks ago

    Not highest.  But studies have shown women who have their first child after 35 have a forty percent higher risk than women who have their first child under the age of twenty.   That's because pregnancy increases the short-term risk of breast cancer, then lowers it after about ten years.  Women who don't have the first pregnancy until age 35 or higher lose that ten year decrease because before it can take effect they move into a different risk category based on age.  

    HIGHEST risk for breast cancer is women who carry the BRCA gene, for the most part.  Some other things that increase your risk factors are obesity, lack of physical activity, hormonal birth control, not breastfeeding, post-menopausal hormone therapy, and alcohol consumption. 

  • 4 weeks ago

    I don't know. If you delay having kids, that means you're on some kind of hormone replacement. And that would also be true for single women, if they're sexually active.

    From what I see, all kinds of women get breast cancer.

    So it would have to be false, but because there are no rules for cancer.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 4 weeks ago

    yes, that is what the best studies say.

    well, actually, i changed my mind, but only on semantics. they are at a greater risk. highest risk would be like a yellow cake miner with a family history of breast cancer who didn't have kids.

    highest risk would be an astronaut who had a special space suit made so that she could have her breasts exposed to gamma radiation.

    highest risk would be a stripper who paints her breasts with radium paint every night for a glow in the dark show.

  • A.J.
    Lv 7
    4 weeks ago

    It's true, but they're small differences. It may not be about having children and instead statistical to breast feeding. The real issue is in having kids one can't afford continuing a cycle of poverty for many. There are too many single parent households today, extremely stressed. The delay in age is partially later marriage, or no marriage at all, and the financial cost, and desire to remain unattached, and for some not wanting to bring a child into the world with its outlook. "Highest" is a poor choice of words, and I don't know the age cutoff makes it true as highest. Highest within three choices of kids when under 30, no kids, and kids over 30.Women over age 35 who give birth only once have a slightly higher lifetime risk of breast cancer compared to women who never give birth. Median age is over 30 now for many groupings of women when considered by country, education level, married or not, financial status, etc.

  • Dimple
    Lv 7
    4 weeks ago

    i don't have breast cancer.. i don't have kids.. i'm 38.

    • mayona
      Lv 4
      4 weeks agoReport

      Same here, no kids, no desire yet to have kids and feeling fit and flying freely.

  • 4 weeks ago

    False. Probably some more shite pouring from Trump's mouth...

  • David
    Lv 6
    4 weeks ago

    Where the hell’d you get that information?

  • Anonymous
    4 weeks ago

    False...............

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.