Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And by the way, what about all these babies you want to save? I notice it isn't you who's willing to pay for them to EAT...you leave that up to us damned tree-huggin' libs who support Welfare and other initiatives. Lovely paradox there. WE'RE killers? What the H*LL do you think starvation does???
That argument really causes me to cringe. But, like I said in that earlier post...at least you are being honest.
Question: Can someone provide me with child starvation stats in the US?
Saga, intelligent...yes you definately are. A salesman...um...not so much.
Not selling anything. If the case doesn't sell itself, don't buy it. But in a neanderthal world, some contrast to the wailing and gnashing of teeth over perfectly healthy babies being butchered for no reason at all one day before they would have been born does seem called for. It is a cold and hard reality that these parents and doctors are faced with. Some should try a dose of that reality themselves sometime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha8207
While this was pretty much covered already, I'll run this out there so you'll be able to get some data for us and I'll have a look in the morning. While I know that asking for a yes no answer from you is like asking for....well....a yes no question from me....hehehehe....let me try anyway.....Do these 5000 cases (data?) you reference make up the majority of the children that are aborted using this method? If so, I need to rethink my position. If not, you don't have one.
What possible relevance does such a standard have? Families face these crises one at a time. In the real world, these are parents who have fought and battled to continue a wanted pregnancy, and they are hit very hard by the ultimate failure of those efforts. But there comes a time when they must confront the fact that all that can be done has been done, and it hasn't been enough...a time when they become resigned to those facts and realize that in the end they must do what is best for both the mother and fetus. In that sorrowful state, they learn of Options A, B, and C. Is this when you come bursting in, claiming that Option A must be ruled out because parents in the same situation have in the past comprised only a majority-minus-one of all parents who elected Option A? Just what sort of hypocritical presumption would you call that? Just how do you warrant interjecting yourself into this scenario at all?
Statistics on the incidence of fetal hydrocephalus are widely available. If you doubt mine, go look them up for yourself. It's a free country. Statistics on the incidence of IDE are not widely available. In fact, no reliable statistics are available at all because virtually no one is willing to report them. The upside of reporting is better statistics. The downside is that your office, clinic, home, and family will be picketed, attacked, ransacked, or bombed by a gangs of religious fanatics upset over a bunch of cartoons (in this case, Jenny Westberg's). What would you do in such a case?
And if you are going to set yourself up as Exalted Accreditor of Positions, maybe you should have one of your own that is actually based on the standards you pretend for it. No one...no one is more qualified or rightly situated to make these decisions than the family involved in consort with such medical, spiritual, or other advisors as they may choose to call upon. Not you, not the Pope, not the Congress. No one.
And by the way, what about all these babies you want to save? I notice it isn't you who's willing to pay for them to EAT...you leave that up to us damned tree-huggin' libs who support Welfare and other initiatives. Lovely paradox there. WE'RE killers? What the H*LL do you think starvation does???
Gotta agree with Alpha...this is such a scary statement. I can't believe anyone would use it as a justification for Partial birth abortion. This statement seems to endorse putting nearly born babies through a barbaric procedure b/c they will be economically disadvantaged. This idea is both elitist and rascist.
With this rationale... if you are going to be a poor kid in a ghetto....you are better off having your brain sucked out than being granted the right to life! It is also a defeatist attitude.... as if people cannot overcome adversity....and are better off not being born.
CelticLady, your story was touching and I'm glad things worked out for you. However, miscarriages and abortions are not the same thing, and no it's not semantics.
Think about this for a minute. Two women are pregnant, both are healthy, both are the same age. At some point in the pregnancy one "all of the sudden" has a miscarriage (I know this because my step-daughter lost her second child this way) of course the woman is devastated. It's sad a tragic.
Meanwhile, the other woman "decides" she does not want to be pregnant anymore. She decides to get up and go to a "doctor" who can "help her" with that. She goes through this traumatic experience of this "procedure" and a man removes, by force, the child within her. Sad and tragic.
The difference is one is making "the choice" to kill the unborn child. The other is not. Pro-abortion folks like to wish all this away by saying it's not a child in there, and it is a "medical procedure" come on? The point is it's wrong and all abortions must be banned forever!
The point I was trying to make was that abortion is not as black and white of an issue as many people would make it out to be. As I stated before, I don't believe in abortion for birth control purposes. My story was to show that there are medical reasons for abortion to be considered, for some people, and they need to be able to make that decision, with the help of their doctor, without having to worry about the government coming into the picture. You are mixing up two situations, one based on medical needs, one based on selfish reasoning, (i.e. the woman who "does not want to be pregnant anymore"). These are entirely different.
I had already changed my mind about some abortions, a few years ago, but the situation with my step-daughter clinched it. I guarantee you, I would not have appreciated someone else, who had nothing to do with our family, making a decision for her, by forbiding her to have an abortion, had she chosen that route. I don't mean to sound ugly, and I do know where you are coming from, because I once believed exactly the same thing, but to say that "all abortions must be banned forever", is to make a blanket statement, and that just won't work. It is entirely unrealistic. Women have always had abortions, and even if abortions were made illegal, they would still happen. It is an unfortunate fact of life. I wish it were not so, but life can be ugly and complicated. Would you make it more so, for the poor woman who feels she and her family must make a horrible decision, based on the health and well-being of her and the child?
From the standpoint of God allowing miscarriages, it would seem that He understands that not every child should come into this world. I don't mean that to sound harsh, but if such were not the case, why would He allow miscarriages? Remember, I am speaking from a medical needs point of view, just like the ones my step-daughter had happening to her. Watching that happen to her, twice, made me definitely realize that it takes much nerve to look such a woman in the face, and demand that she carry a baby to term, regardless of the consequences to her or the child.
Abortion is the killing of an innocent unborn person.
Huh? What happened to that 'original sin' thing? Isn't that injected at the moment of conception as well? Isn't this a two-for-one deal here? By the way, in your theological realm, what happens to the supposed soul of an aborted fetus anyway?
Quote:
Originally Posted by faith10
The unborn have as much right to live as the mother, this is why God made abortion impossible except 'to kill' by human hands.
Then you'd not exactly be considering the more than three million such 'killings' that God Himself apparently carries out every year in this country. Just about half of all pregnancies consummated in this country end in spontaneous abortion. Why did He put those into the equation do you think?
And you might question yourself further over the fact that abortion was already long-practiced by the time of Jesus. It was often carried out in the temple. If this were actually such a big deal to your Deity, don't you think that it could have been arranged for His major Messenger, His only begotten Son, to have managed to work so little as a comment or two about it into his years of preaching over a wide range of other topics? Didn't happen. Not there. Not a single word. Why is that?
What possible relevance does such a standard have?
Relevance?? You tell me, you brought it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
And if you are going to set yourself up as Exalted Accreditor of Positions, maybe you should have one of your own that is actually based on the standards you pretend for it. No one...no one is more qualified or rightly situated to make these decisions than the family involved in consort with such medical, spiritual, or other advisors as they may choose to call upon. Not you, not the Pope, not the Congress. No one.
You sir, have selective reading skills and a remarkable ability to say much without saying anything. Since you seem to try and make me something many here will admit I'm not, let me give you just a few of my views from this same thread. I'd post them all, but you've already read them and CHOSEN to respond to me as if I never said them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha8207
I think you make some very compelling arguments and I certainly respect the rights of any parent(s) to make medical decisions based on medical certainties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha8207
Here's my only thoughts and, again, I just make these as observations:
1-Like most things, Americans tend to take laws that are established for good, and pervert them into something they weren't intended. Do you know of a source of data that would verify that the procedure we're discussing is used primarlily for the issues you raise? I don't even know where to begin looking, but you seem very informed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha8207
It's very complicated. Very sensitive. And very personal. But as a society, I think lines have to be drawn. There's a fine line and a hard road to walk to balance the needs of the individual against the needs of the society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha8207
Wow, that was something I had not even considered. That opens up a whole new line of thought for me. Thank you for broadening my view!
That's just a portion. I enjoy discourse and debate, but you don't use the same reason on yourself that you use on others.
If you are going to bring up this
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Don't be so sure. Intact dilation and extraction (IDE) was originally developed and endorsed because of its degree of safety and compassion. Unlike other alternatives, it gave parents faced with the most horrific of all possible pregnancy outcomes something they could hold and grieve over. Every year in this country, more than 5,000 pregnancies are complicated by fetal hydrocephalus.
and then ask me the relevance of it, well....if you don't see the problem with asking me the relevance of YOUR post, I may have given you too much credit already.
Question: Can someone provide me with child starvation stats in the US?
Report: In U.S., record numbers are plunged into poverty
Snippet: Based on the latest available U.S. census data from 2005, the McClatchy Newspapers analysis found that almost 16 million Americans live in "deep or severe poverty" defined as a family of four with two children earning less than 9,903 dollars — one half the federal poverty line figure.
For individuals the "deep poverty" threshold was an income under 5,080 dollars a year.
"The McClatchy analysis found that the number of severely poor Americans grew by 26% from 2000 to 2005," the U.S. newspaper chain reported.
"That's 56% faster than the overall poverty population grew in the same period," it noted.
The surge in poverty comes alongside an unusual economic expansion.
"Worker productivity has increased dramatically since the brief recession of 2001, but wages and job growth have lagged behind. At the same time, the share of national income going to corporate profits has dwarfed the amount going to wages and salaries," the study found.
"That helps explain why the median household income for working-age families, adjusted for inflation, has fallen for five straight years.
"These and other factors have helped push 43% of the nation's 37 million poor people into deep poverty — the highest rate since at least 1975. The share of poor Americans in deep poverty has climbed slowly but steadily over the last three decades," the report said.
It quoted an American Journal of Preventive Medicine study as having found that since 2000, the number of severely poor — far below basic poverty terms — in the United States has grown "more than any other segment of the population."
With this rationale... if you are going to be a poor kid in a ghetto....you are better off having your brain sucked out than being granted the right to life! It is also a defeatist attitude.... as if people cannot overcome adversity....and are better off not being born.
I believe that the poster was going toward the rather widely held stereotype of right-to-lifers being willing to spend anything at all in defense of a fetus, and then, beginning with the very moment of its birth, voting to cut funding for an infant's health, nutrition, education, and so forth. Believe it or not, there are some who see an inconsistency there. It's one that you chose not to address...
Report: In U.S., record numbers are plunged into poverty
Snippet: Based on the latest available U.S. census data from 2005, the McClatchy Newspapers analysis found that almost 16 million Americans live in "deep or severe poverty" defined as a family of four with two children earning less than 9,903 dollars — one half the federal poverty line figure.
For individuals the "deep poverty" threshold was an income under 5,080 dollars a year.
"The McClatchy analysis found that the number of severely poor Americans grew by 26% from 2000 to 2005," the U.S. newspaper chain reported.
"That's 56% faster than the overall poverty population grew in the same period," it noted.
The surge in poverty comes alongside an unusual economic expansion.
"Worker productivity has increased dramatically since the brief recession of 2001, but wages and job growth have lagged behind. At the same time, the share of national income going to corporate profits has dwarfed the amount going to wages and salaries," the study found.
"That helps explain why the median household income for working-age families, adjusted for inflation, has fallen for five straight years.
"These and other factors have helped push 43% of the nation's 37 million poor people into deep poverty — the highest rate since at least 1975. The share of poor Americans in deep poverty has climbed slowly but steadily over the last three decades," the report said.
It quoted an American Journal of Preventive Medicine study as having found that since 2000, the number of severely poor — far below basic poverty terms — in the United States has grown "more than any other segment of the population."
The argument was made that starvation kills babies that aren't aborted.
So my question is: Can someone provide me with child starvation stats in the US?
So my question is: Can someone provide me with child starvation stats in the US?
.
In 2002, there were approximately 34.6 million Americans who were going to bed hungry at night....
in 2001, 1.35 million children did not know when their next meal would be.
...if a child's height and weight are stunted by age two, they are at risk for academic and behavioral problems at school.
This is a PDF file: Malnutrition in the United States
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
