RIP

[mhailey]

Angelina Jolie's breasts left this world (http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/14/18240043-angelina-jolie-i-had-double-mastectomy-because-of-high-breast-cancer-risk?lite). It is a sad day, as they contributed to the rise Hollywood, and were influential in their stature.

You will be missed!

[icehog3]

Yes, Hollywood was nothing before Angelina's tits arrived.

[equetefue]

Moment of silence please

[jjirons69]

Ballsiest move I've seen in quite a while. Talk about a preemptive strike.

[Remo]

Stupid!!! Because of a high risk, yet does not have cancer!!! Damn, people are DUMB!!

[AdamJoshua]

Oh thought this was for the Toronto Maple Leafs.


;s

[Remo]

Oh thought this was for the Toronto Maple Leafs.


;s

Or the Bulls and OKC

[CigarNut]

Stupid!!! Because of a high risk, yet does not have cancer!!! Damn, people are DUMB!!

I have to disagree with you. If she should get cancer she would be a lot worse off -- possibly risking death. She decided it was not worth waiting to find out -- she would rather live with a lower cancer risk without breasts.

Maybe, you would decide differently, and that is your right.

The real question for me is did the surgery actually reduce her risk of cancer.

My wife has a family history of breast cancer and I can tell you these are very real, very important decisions.

[Blueface]

I have to disagree with you. If she should get cancer she would be a lot worse off -- possibly risking death. She decided it was not worth waiting to find out -- she would rather live with a lower cancer risk without breasts.

Maybe, you would decide differently, and that is your right.

The real question for me is did the surgery actually reduce her risk of cancer.

My wife has a family history of breast cancer and I can tell you these are very real, very important decisions.

Michael,
She was advised she had an 87% probability of getting breast cancer.
By having this surgery, she has reduced it to 5%.

Also, her mother died of cancer at 52.

Christina Applegate made the same decision due to the same reasoning as Angelina.

[E.J.]

I have to disagree with you. If she should get cancer she would be a lot worse off -- possibly risking death. She decided it was not worth waiting to find out -- she would rather live with a lower cancer risk without breasts.

Maybe, you would decide differently, and that is your right.

The real question for me is did the surgery actually reduce her risk of cancer.

My wife has a family history of breast cancer and I can tell you these are very real, very important decisions.

As far as I know, she will not even have to live without breasts, just without her natural ones. They will do reconstruction.....

I also would vote for the precautionary strike(assuming I was in the situation with my wife and she gave me a vote). My friends wife just did double, when she one needed to do single(a little different, but same concept).

Long story short, better safe than sorry, especially with what they can do reconstruction wise today.

[Genetic Defect]

:rolleyes:

[Ogre]

Her boobs were not real to begin with. Watch the movie Hackers, the are small. She will rebuild, we have the means to do it.

[CigarNut]

As far as I know, she will not even have to live without breasts, just without her natural ones. They will do reconstruction.....

I also would vote for the precautionary strike(assuming I was in the situation with my wife and she gave me a vote). My friends wife just did double, when she one needed to do single(a little different, but same concept).

Long story short, better safe than sorry, especially with what they can do reconstruction wise today.Agreed!

[Remo]

I just don't believe that cutting off breasts reduces the cancer risk, hell guys get breast cancer.

[Blueface]

I just don't believe that cutting off breasts reduces the cancer risk, hell guys get breast cancer.

87% probability is a scary proposition.

You are not inferring guys don't have breasts, right?
We do have them, just not as pronounced, unless a woman with A cups v an overweight guy, where the latter will likely be larger.

When they remove the breasts, they remove the area prone to cancer, hence in fact reduce the risk.
This voluntary procedure is becoming much more common thanks to an expensive genetic test that identifies the cancer gene.

[Remo]

87% probability is a scary proposition.

You are not inferring guys don't have breasts, right?
We do have them, just not as pronounced, unless a woman with A cups v an overweight guy, where the latter will likely be larger.

When they remove the breasts, they remove the area prone to cancer, hence in fact reduce the risk.
This voluntary procedure is becoming much more common thanks to an expensive genetic test that identifies the cancer gene.

Gotcha...not to be a nay sayer or start a big thing but have any of your seen/listened to The China Study or Forks over Knives?

[bobarian]

I just don't believe that cutting off breasts reduces the cancer risk, hell guys get breast cancer.

And where did you receive your medical degree? :sh

If you dont have a clue then sometimes it's better not to post. :bh

[OLS]

I had a morbid thought when I heard this. Does a doctor sell the tits to some kind of freak for $30,000?
I heard Brad Pitt was in the room, probably watching the titty chain of custody.

[Ed M]

And where did you receive your medical degree? :sh

If you dont have a clue then sometimes it's better not to post. :bh

I agree, some poeple are just freakin' ignorant.

[pnoon]

Well this thread sure devolved into something unintended.

Closing it up before it gets really ugly.