Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Why Doesn't Infant Mortality Recieve The Same Attention As Abortion


DRSmith

Recommended Posts

I was wondering why there is not more said about infant mortality, it seems you could have consensus on the matter with all peoples pretty much and this really does seem to be a problem that is money driven ie the poorer the country or the touger times are economically the higher the rate climbs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inaction is easier than action to both do and accept

We do already provide funds and guidance to prevent infant mortality.....any suggestions to prevent either more?

I think there should be less demonizing of the poor to begin and education and funds seem to hurting in some states, but it occurs to me if the same attention was paid to this issue as abortion it would be further ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was wondering why there is not more said about infant mortality, it seems you could have consensus on the matter with all peoples pretty much and this really does seem to be a problem that is money driven ie the poorer the country or the touger times are economically the higher the rate climbs.

Deliberate killing is generally going to attract more attention than random and/or accidental deaths, especially if it's sanctioned by the government.

Whether or not infant mortality is something everyone can get behind stopping, probably depends on what the main causes of death are.

I honestly don't know much about the issue at all. But I would imagine that it's theoretically a lot harder to deal with and get people to want to spend money on easing constant conditions that end up with dying infants, than it is get them to support outlawing or limiting the use of a single act that results directly in their death. Obviously both issues are a lot more complicated than that though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just saying, you don't hear as much about the subject because no one is for the death of infants.

Whether or not infant mortality is something everyone can get behind stopping, probably depends on what the main causes of death are.

1/3 are the result of pre-mature births. By far the greatest cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're naive. Very few people are willing to pay more in taxes regardless of what they claim to believe.

Yep...if they wanted to spend money to address it there are many avenues open now.

There are more opposed to spending tax dollars on abortion than support the right to it as a example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just saying, you don't hear as much about the subject because no one is for the death of infants.

Nice sideways shot at Pro-Choice...painting them as if they are "for" abortions.

1/3 are the result of pre-mature births. By far the greatest cause.

But what causes the pre-mature births? A pre-mature birth is not a cause of death, it's a symptom of larger problems. I for one believe that the reason we don't hear more about infant mortality especially from the Right is because it's just easier to be against an abortion than it is to be for a child, especially a child who is born into a cycle of poverty, and breaking those cycles that lead to many infant deaths is difficult and expensive. So, Pro-Life is all for getting the child born but then it's apparently out of their control what happens next in that child's life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice sideways shot at Pro-Choice...painting them as if they are "for" abortions.

You're right, I skipped a step. Pro-choice advocates are "for" other people being able to perform abortions.

But what causes the pre-mature births?

I don't know. I know many countries don't count premature births the same way we do which artificially increases our infant mortality rate in relation to other countries.

I for one believe that the reason we don't hear more about infant mortality especially from the Right is...

Irrelevant. No one on the right or left wants children to die.

If we all agreed that the fetus was a child, there would be no pro-choicers. No one on the right or left wants an innocent person to die. We only disagree about what constitutes a person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right, I skipped a step. Pro-choice advocates are "for" other people being able to perform abortions.

And yet, you still act as if we "want" those abortions to take place, I am Pro-Choice in the cases of rape, incest and life of the mother, but that doesn't mean that I am "for" anyone performing abortions. Again, you're playing a bad game.

No I don't. I know many countries don't count premature births the same way we do which artificially increases our infant mortality rate in relation to other countries.

LoL, so because other countries count differently that means we "artificially" inflate the numbers? Why doesn't it mean that they are "artificially" deflating their numbers. Again you're bias is showing pretty clearly in the way you're painting the other side.

Irrelevant. No one on the right or left wants children to die.

You're right, no one wants them to die, it just seems that only one side is willing to do something about it. See both sides can play unfair. Of course until the Right actually begins to take seriously the root causes of poverty and the cycle of poverty then that just says to me that they aren't truly serious about doing anything about infant mortality, and the Left while their solutions may not be perfect at least want to address these issues.

If we all agreed that the fetus was a child, there would be no pro-choicers. No one on the right or left wants an innocent person to die. We only disagree about what constitutes a person.

Well, that's just wrong. We all agree that the civilians in Iraq are people and children and yet 100,000+ of them have been killed in our war, and they are innocents. So, in the end it has nothing to do with what constitutes a person, or even an innocent person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LoL, so because other countries count differently that means we "artificially" inflate the numbers? Why doesn't it mean that they are "artificially" deflating their numbers. Again you're bias is showing pretty clearly in the way you're painting the other side.

It is irrelevant. You can say it either way and it doesn't change my point. Different countries count premature births differently, you can say that any way you want. If you saw bias in this comment, you're seeing things.

You're right, no one wants them to die.

exactly. You're perception is irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is irrelevant. You can say it either way and it doesn't change my point. Different countries count premature births differently, you can say that any way you want. If you saw bias in this comment, you're seeing things.

There was bias because you added the adjective "artificially" to your statement, that was a judgment you were making upon the way different countries count.

exactly. You're perception is irrelevant.

Well, that's certainly no way to continue a discussion....have it your way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's just wrong. We all agree that the civilians in Iraq are people and children and yet 100,000+ of them have been killed in our war, and they are innocents. So, in the end it has nothing to do with what constitutes a person, or even an innocent person.

The aborted fetus isn't collateral damage. The surgeon isn't trying to abort the rapist and accidentally hitting the fetus. If a soldier targets a civilian the way a surgeon targets a fetus, we'd call that a war crime.

You're going to need to pick another analogy to make this work.

---------- Post added April-16th-2011 at 07:33 PM ----------

Well, that's certainly no way to continue a discussion....have it your way.

It wasn't really a discussion was it? You're using words like "feel" and "seems like". You're expressing your feelings and I am not affirming them. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The aborted fetus isn't collateral damage. The surgeon isn't trying to abort the rapist and accidentally hitting the fetus. If a soldier targets a civilian the way a surgeon targets a fetus, we'd call that a war crime.

And yet you accept those as acceptable losses, it's not about life, it's about which lives and under which conditions, abortion is no different, because if it were you'd be as outraged at every "collateral" death as you were every abortion. Which goes back to my point, the Right doesn't care about doing anything about the lives of the poor once they are born.

You're going to need to pick another analogy to make this work.

No you just need a Pro-Life position that is consistent, with the words Pro-Life.

It wasn't really a discussion was it? You're using words like "feel" and "seems like". You're expressing your feelings and I am not affirming them. :)

That's funny because I didn't use any of those words.

---------- Post added April-16th-2011 at 07:50 PM ----------

Weren't Iraqi deaths actually lower during the war and after?

Weren't there fewer abortions under Clinton than under Bush?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is irrelevant. You can say it either way and it doesn't change my point. Different countries count premature births differently, you can say that any way you want. If you saw bias in this comment, you're seeing things.

.

Actually normalized for premature births we still rank pretty terribly among industrialized nations.

The CDC did a study on the effects of birth-weight reporting and premature births best case scenario reporting by any statistics the US is 19th

Here is the full report and findings.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db23.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But would not pro choice people also be willing to pay more in taxes to help those born or am I naive?

No DrSmith we want the nameless innocent babies born so we can see their faces when they die..

You never cease to amaze.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_dyn_imrt_in&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=infant+mortality+rate+united+states

6.8% of 320million in the United States vs.

5.3% of 32 million in Canada.

I think were doing pretty good considering the sheer magnitude of the numbers.

Were we supposed to bring up numbers or just take it and nod?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet, you still act as if we "want" those abortions to take place, I am Pro-Choice in the cases of rape, incest and life of the mother, but that doesn't mean that I am "for" anyone performing abortions. Again, you're playing a bad game.
Genuinely curious. What "choice" do you, as someone who is "pro-choice", want everybody to have?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weren't there fewer abortions under Clinton than under Bush?

No

http://www.factcheck.org/article330.html

jpyaks3, we could work on reducing alcohol,drug and tobacco use among the pregnant more...or violence to women(pregnancy is the most dangerous time in most women's life from abuse)

http://www.dcmsonline.org/jax-medicine/1999journals/May99/pregnancy.htm

Perinatal Impact Of Domestic Violence

The impact of domestic violence on women's health is the subject of other material in this journal. This article will focus on perinatal consequences. The literature suggests increased rates of preterm labor and chorioamnionitis,1 low birthweight5, anemia, infections, first- and second-trimester bleeding, and fetal distress.6 This literature is somewhat inconsistent,3 but suggestive in the aggregate of both direct and indirect effects on the fetus of abuse to the mother. More consistent are findings of associated tobacco, alcohol and drug use, late prenatal care, poor maternal weight gain, depression, and suicide attempts.5,6 These are confounders which might explain the variable results of attempts to evaluate the impact of domestic violence on perinatal outcome. It is not clear whether there is a cause-and-effect relationship between the abuse and the other destructive behaviors, versus each being symptomatic of an underlying common trigger. Nevertheless, whether viewed as a separate risk factor or simply a marker, presence of a domestic violence history may identify patients at increased likelihood of untoward perinatal outcomes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet you accept those as acceptable losses, it's not about life, it's about which lives and under which conditions, abortion is no different, because if it were you'd be as outraged at every "collateral" death as you were every abortion. Which goes back to my point, the Right doesn't care about doing anything about the lives of the poor once they are born.

No you just need a Pro-Life position that is consistent, with the words Pro-Life.

I am against murder. To internally take the life of an innocent person is not acceptable to me, either in war or on the doctor's table. And I don't see this as an extreme position. I assume that pro-choicers are against murder as well so they must not believe the fetus is an innocent person.

But if you believe the fetus is an innocent person AND you believe it should be legal to kill it even though it poses no threat to anyone else...I really don't know what to do with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually normalized for premature births we still rank pretty terribly among industrialized nations.

The CDC did a study on the effects of birth-weight reporting and premature births best case scenario reporting by any statistics the US is 19th

Here is the full report and findings.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db23.htm

Count the number of people in the 18 countries ahead of the United States.

Some have 500,000 people with some of the largest a 10th of the pop.

We have 320million. How many countries even close to the size and complexity of the US are above us.

Even the Miracle that is Canada. The Eutopia of good living is 1% better with a 10th of the pop?

Originally Posted by AsburySkinsFan

And yet you accept those as acceptable losses, it's not about life, it's about which lives and under which conditions, abortion is no different, because if it were you'd be as outraged at every "collateral" death as you were every abortion. Which goes back to my point, the Right doesn't care about doing anything about the lives of the poor once they are born.

No you just need a Pro-Life position that is consistent, with the words Pro-Life.

Your the meanest person on the ES board bar none. Again its the "right" that wants to save unborn babies just to kill them when we see their cherub faces.

We don't care about anything except our money and our God and our guns.

I am pro life in all instances, and would be greatful if we could say if a baby is viable outside of the womb it should not be allowed to be aborted short of medical.

Thats 5.5months. I am not exactly happy with that but i want to save those i can vs. saving none by saying life starts at conception.

ASF: Wouldn't you want to save those that could be saved?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am against murder. To internally take the life of an innocent person is not acceptable to me, either in war or on the doctor's table. And I don't see this as an extreme position. I assume that pro-choicers are against murder as well so they must not believe the fetus is an innocent person.

But if you believe the fetus is an innocent person AND you believe it should be legal to kill it even though it poses no threat to anyone else...I really don't know what to do with that.

And I still notice that you never addressed "collateral" death, and if you're ok with that then I'm not sure what to do with that.

However, if you can't understand the problems involved in incestuous pregnancies, rapes, and situations where giving birth will put the life of the mother at risk then I'm not sure what to do about that.

---------- Post added April-16th-2011 at 08:17 PM ----------

Genuinely curious. What "choice" do you, as someone who is "pro-choice", want everybody to have?

I've listed my three criteria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I still notice that you never addressed "collateral" death, and if you're ok with that then I'm not sure what to do with that.

However, if you can't understand the problems involved in incestuous pregnancies, rapes, and situations where giving birth will put the life of the mother at risk then I'm not sure what to do about that.

---------- Post added April-16th-2011 at 08:17 PM ----------

I've listed my three criteria.

So you agree that we should save the innocent when we can. were just arguing over Your 3 choices (1-2% differences)?

Based on your statements in this topic:

We hate the children and want them to die

We hate those raped and want them to suffer

We hate the mothers and want them to die.

right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...