Women spend most of their lives without pregnancy, and when they’re pregnant, it’s usually 1-2 years of their whole life.
Shouldn’t it be not that important when it comes to elevated risk of reproductive cancers (breast, uterine, ovarian etc) if the woman is nullipar?
What’s the explanation?
In: Biology
To answer your question we would need a solid understanding of all the mechanisms giving rise to cancer in those areas and how pregnancy alters or pauses those mechanisms.
Philosophically, I would say that the biological purpose of those parts is the conceiving, bearing and nourishing of young. It shouldn’t be surprising that using parts in accordance with their purpose (what they were designed/selected for) is going to produce better health outcomes for those parts than not doing so, barring accidents of course. None of this is any reflection on the direct effects on the overall health of the woman’s body and mind from pregnancy, childbirth and nursing, let alone the broader social and economic consequences (which feed indirectly into health effects) to her and her family either way.
Latest Answers