Infant Deaths

Cancel7

Banned
The same week that religious fanatics gained the right to make medical decisions for women in the United States of America, also brought us this news.

Now, if I were a cynical person, who sneered at the "sanctity of life" claims of religious fanatics, I might question why their loud mouths weren't down in Mississippi trying to save the lives of those outside of the womb. I might question why so many of them vote for the party responsible for these cutbacks. I might question a lot of things, including the role of race.

But since I'm not cynical and I take religious fanatics at their word, I eagerly await the massive campaigns they are going to mount to combat the tragic results in the below article. Eagerly, I await it! In fact, I'll stay inside this week, so I don't get run over by the stampede!

In Turnabout, Infant Deaths Climb in South
By ERIK ECKHOLM
HOLLANDALE, Miss. — For decades, Mississippi and neighboring states with large black populations and expanses of enduring poverty made steady progress in reducing infant death. But, in what health experts call an ominous portent, progress has stalled and in recent years the death rate has risen in Mississippi and several other states.

The setbacks have raised questions about the impact of cuts in welfare and Medicaid and of poor access to doctors, and, many doctors say, the growing epidemics of obesity, diabetes and hypertension among potential mothers, some of whom tip the scales here at 300 to 400 pounds.

“I don’t think the rise is a fluke, and it’s a disturbing trend, not only in Mississippi but throughout the Southeast,” said Dr. Christina Glick, a neonatologist in Jackson, Miss., and past president of the National Perinatal Association.

To the shock of Mississippi officials, who in 2004 had seen the infant mortality rate — defined as deaths by the age of 1 year per thousand live births — fall to 9.7, the rate jumped sharply in 2005, to 11.4. The national average in 2003, the last year for which data have been compiled, was 6.9. Smaller rises also occurred in 2005 in Alabama, North Carolina and Tennessee. Louisiana and South Carolina saw rises in 2004 and have not yet reported on 2005.

Whether the rises continue or not, federal officials say, rates have stagnated in the Deep South at levels well above the national average.

Most striking, here and throughout the country, is the large racial disparity. In Mississippi, infant deaths among blacks rose to 17 per thousand births in 2005 from 14.2 per thousand in 2004, while those among whites rose to 6.6 per thousand from 6.1. (The national average in 2003 was 5.7 for whites and 14.0 for blacks.)

The overall jump in Mississippi meant that 65 more babies died in 2005 than in the previous year, for a total of 481.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/h...gin&adxnnlx=1177255561-7OS7Yn5XRWJDfFBnvq8WqA
 
As far as I understand it, the decision only changes the procedure to include a lethal injection for the developing human before removing the fetus as they did before. It excludes the scissors and includes a different form of death. It seems that the panic may be a bit misrepresented.

First in the fact that this doesn't stop any of the abortions, and secondly that the child must be dismembered in the womb. Both of these are false statements made by extremist views. Including a lethal injection rather than killing the child after it has been mostly delivered doesn't add to the danger of the mother significantly and it is a misrepresentation to suggest that it makes it so that the child must be dismembered before removal.
 
As far as I understand it, the decision only changes the procedure to include a lethal injection for the developing human before removing the fetus as they did before. It excludes the scissors and includes a different form of death. It seems that the panic may be a bit misrepresented.

First in the fact that this doesn't stop any of the abortions, and secondly that the child must be dismembered in the womb. Both of these are false statements made by extremist views. Including a lethal injection rather than killing the child after it has been mostly delivered doesn't add to the danger of the mother significantly and it is a misrepresentation to suggest that it makes it so that the child must be dismembered before removal.

I'm glad that's how you "understand it" Damo, but the fact remains that's not the case. The fetus would now be removed in pieces, and doctor's prefer the outlawed procedure because it is considered, by medical professionals, to be the safer one for the woman. Again, this procedure is used for women in the late stages of a wanted pregnancy when something has gone horribly wrong. If my doctor tells me, this procedure is more likely to preserve my ability to have future babies, and also more likely not to cause damage to my organs, then I will listen to her. I don't want you in my doctor's office.

I'm not in yours.

What termination do you believe this law is going to stop?
 
What termination do you believe this law is going to stop?
//

It will stop the termination of some Republicans votes by one issue sheeple voters.
 
I'm glad that's how you "understand it" Damo, but the fact remains that's not the case. The fetus would now be removed in pieces, and doctor's prefer the outlawed procedure because it is considered, by medical professionals, to be the safer one for the woman. Again, this procedure is used for women in the late stages of a wanted pregnancy when something has gone horribly wrong. If my doctor tells me, this procedure is more likely to preserve my ability to have future babies, and also more likely not to cause damage to my organs, then I will listen to her. I don't want you in my doctor's office.

I'm not in yours.

What termination do you believe this law is going to stop?
Did you not read? I said that it would stop none. You are again assuming an extremist point of view because that is what you want. So you can call me a troglodyte or something. You believe you have some sort of righteous anger to spout and want a target. I hope you understand that I'm probably not the best target for this one.

According to what I have read of the law, and what the medical lawyer the other day on the radio stated, the procedure can be exactly the same with a lethal injection before applying the forceps and pulling the forming human through the birth canal. That it is a misrepresentation of the law that the developing human must be dismembered and an extremist point of view. That is only one of the options, not the only one left.

Therefore a lethal injection would allow the fetus to be delivered in the same manner. The only difference would be the death by scissor and suction that made the whole thing so abhorrent to so many.

I am sure that since you are so reasonable on this subject you will remember that the "life of the mother" clause was the side argued by myself on this one, while a different person argued the other side. All beings have the right to defend their life, even from developing life.

So, let's get back to asking what my viewpoint is rather than assuming it. You are wrong every time when you attempt to preconceive my opinion rather than actually asking for it.
 
I'm glad that's how you "understand it" Damo, but the fact remains that's not the case. The fetus would now be removed in pieces, and doctor's prefer the outlawed procedure because it is considered, by medical professionals, to be the safer one for the woman. Again, this procedure is used for women in the late stages of a wanted pregnancy when something has gone horribly wrong. If my doctor tells me, this procedure is more likely to preserve my ability to have future babies, and also more likely not to cause damage to my organs, then I will listen to her. I don't want you in my doctor's office.

I'm not in yours.

What termination do you believe this law is going to stop?

Why are you in such a tizzy? If it's not going to stop anything, what are you upset about? Typically people are happy when their opponents legislation is ineffective. Keep harping and they WILL do something that WILL stop babies from dying. Then will you be happier? You have gone mental.
 
Did you not read? I said that it would stop none. You are again assuming an extremist point of view because that is what you want. So you can call me a troglodyte or something. You believe you have some sort of righteous anger to spout and want a target. I hope you understand that I'm probably not the best target for this one.

According to what I have read of the law, and what the medical lawyer the other day on the radio stated, the procedure can be exactly the same with a lethal injection. That it is a misrepresentation of the law that the developing human must be dismembered. That is only one of the options, not the only one left.

Therefore a lethal injection would allow the fetus to be delivered in the same manner. The only difference would be the death by scissor and suction that made the whole thing so abhorrent to so many.

Yes Damo, I do read. Check out what you wrote:
"First in the fact that this doesn't stop any of the abortions, and secondly that the child must be dismembered in the womb. Both of these are false statements made by extremist views."

I read that as both of "these" are false statements. If the statement "this won't stop one abortion" is a "false statement" that would mean that you think it is going to stop abortions. How do you read that? Perhaps I am missing something. Or perhaps you misspoke, and would rather accuse me of being unable to read, than admit that? Could this be Damo? It would be so...manly of you, and I wouldn't hold it against you. :)

And Damo, I want my doctor to advise me on the best medical procedure to end such a tragic circumstance. Not you, and not the Supreme Court, and not Congress. You can sit here and say it makes no difference, you can use a lethal injection, you can do this and you can do that. First of all, there is debat within the medical community and among providers about what this all means. Second of all, I'll leave that up to my doctor, and you can leave your medical decisions up to your doctor, and you are certainly free to find a doctor who allows their religious beliefs to sway their medical decisions. I have no problem with your doing that. But I have a big problem with anybody telling me I have to do the same.
 
"You are again assuming an extremist point of view because that is what you want. So you can call me a troglodyte or something. You believe you have some sort of righteous anger to spout and want a target. I hope you understand that I'm probably not the best target for this one."

Damo I never called you a troglodyte, and I'm not looking for someone to target my anger at on this board.

I utilize my anger in much more productive ways. I do not focus my anger at screenames on message boards. I use it in my work to try and actually change things, not to score points on message boards. And whether or not you consider me an "extremist" because I refuse to agree you have a right to be in my doctor's office, remains a matter of supreme indifference to me.

I'll be out working to support the legislation, being drawn up even now, that will render this ruling moot, and also working at the grassroots level to get a President in 08 who will sign that legislation. Ok? :)
 
I fully understand that you want your doctor to advise you on medical procedures. And that has not changed. However your description of the procedure, according to a lawyer familiar with that law, is simply wrong. Dismemberment is not the only option.

Hmmmm... I didn't state clearly then.

1. It is a fact that this will not stop any abortions.
2. It is not a fact that developing humans must be dismembered.

That would be a better representation of what I understand to be the truth and as explained by a lawyer familiar in medical law.

Therefore, we agree that this will not stop these abortions. We disagree that it means that they must be dismembered.
 
"You are again assuming an extremist point of view because that is what you want. So you can call me a troglodyte or something. You believe you have some sort of righteous anger to spout and want a target. I hope you understand that I'm probably not the best target for this one."

Damo I never called you a troglodyte, and I'm not looking for someone to target my anger at on this board.

I utilize my anger in much more productive ways. I do not focus my anger at screenames on message boards. I use it in my work to try and actually change things, not to score points on message boards. And whether or not you consider me an "extremist" because I refuse to agree you have a right to be in my doctor's office, remains a matter of supreme indifference to me.

I'll be out working to support the legislation, being drawn up even now, that will render this ruling moot, and also working at the grassroots level to get a President in 08 who will sign that legislation. Ok? :)
Hence the "or something". It appears that often you assume some extreme point of view where none exists.

It was my understanding that such procedures have rarely been done for any reason other than the health of the mother for a very long time.
 
Darla, when are you going to learn?

The TheoCons only care about children when their in the fetus. That's the perfect time for government intervention, and for fat ass politicians to replace doctors opinions, with their own.

Once outside the womb, the government has little role to play. Disadvantaged children's needs should be left to charity. And personal responsibility: They could have chosen different parents!
 
Hence the "or something". It appears that often you assume some extreme point of view where none exists.

It was my understanding that such procedures have rarely been done for any reason other than the health of the mother for a very long time.

Well, how can that not be common sense? How many women are going to decide in their third trimester to terminate the pregnancy? That woman, is a statistical anomay. The national association of Obstetrics and Gynecology concludes that this procedure should remain legal. I am aware there is some dispute within certain parts of the medical community on that, however the fact remains that I don't go see a medical lawyer when I need a gynecological exam, and I don't go see an ear, mouth and throat specialist either. I go to see a specialist and that's who I want making these medical decisions for me, with my input of course. We all pick the doctor that we trust the most. Not all doctors are equal, we know this.

Since we both agree that this is not going to stop one termination, then we would are left to wonder why the activists on the religious right were celebrating this decision, aren't we?
 
Darla, when are you going to learn?

The TheoCons only care about children when their in the fetus. That's the perfect time for government intervention, and for fat ass politicians to replace doctors opinions, with their own.

Once outside the womb, the government has little role to play. Disadvantaged children's needs should be left to charity. And personal responsibility: They could have chosen different parents!

And conversely, progresso-nihilists only value children when it comes to expanding entitlement programs, and demean compassion if it comes from anyone associated with a church.
 
Darla, when are you going to learn?

The TheoCons only care about children when their in the fetus. That's the perfect time for government intervention, and for fat ass politicians to replace doctors opinions, with their own.

Once outside the womb, the government has little role to play. Disadvantaged children's needs should be left to charity. And personal responsibility: They could have chosen different parents!

Right, back to what the article was about. I have always believed that policy affects people and their lives, and that's why politics is important. This is an alarming turn about in the South.
 
Hence the "or something". It appears that often you assume some extreme point of view where none exists.

It was my understanding that such procedures have rarely been done for any reason other than the health of the mother for a very long time.

And Damo, I never call you any names, you thickheaded mook!
 
Right, back to what the article was about. I have always believed that policy affects people and their lives, and that's why politics is important. This is an alarming turn about in the South.

I think the U.S. has the highest infant death and child poverty rate in the developed world. By far, if I'm not mistaken.

Why is that? Yeah, we can have fancy explanations again, about our history with slavery, institutionalized racism, etc. Those may all be factors around the margins.

But I again, choose to employ Occum's Razor: the simplest explanation is we as a nation, are not investing in children and young mothers, to the extent other nations are: day care, pre-natal health care, etc.
 
I think the U.S. has the highest infant death and child poverty rate in the developed world. By far, if I'm not mistaken.

Why is that? Yeah, we can have fancy explanations again, about our history with slavery, institutionalized racism, etc. Those may all be factors around the margins.

But I again, choose to employ Occum's Razor: the simplest explanation is we as a nation, are not investing in children and young mothers, to the extent other nations are: day care, pre-natal health care, etc.

Are you going by the american definition of poverty? The one where the poverty stricken still have two tv's, two cars, and enough food to become morbidly obese?
 
I think the U.S. has the highest infant death and child poverty rate in the developed world. By far, if I'm not mistaken.

Why is that? Yeah, we can have fancy explanations again, about our history with slavery, institutionalized racism, etc. Those may all be factors around the margins.

But I again, choose to employ Occum's Razor: the simplest explanation is we as a nation, are not investing in children and young mothers, to the extent other nations are: day care, pre-natal health care, etc.
The measures are not the same from what I recall.
 
I think the U.S. has the highest infant death and child poverty rate in the developed world. By far, if I'm not mistaken.

Why is that? Yeah, we can have fancy explanations again, about our history with slavery, institutionalized racism, etc. Those may all be factors around the margins.

But I again, choose to employ Occum's Razor: the simplest explanation is we as a nation, are not investing in children and young mothers, to the extent other nations are: day care, pre-natal health care, etc.
I doubt your conclusion in the third paragraph.
 
Back
Top