Funny thing about those infant mortality statistics.
Posted By: TechSupport on 2009-05-01
In Reply to: Just look at statistics on infant mortality rate for mothers without prenatal care - nm - lall
Rather than my doing the homework for you, I'll let you scour around and see if you can identify the problems with comparative infant mortality statistics, saying only that they don't quite prove what a lot of people think or want them to prove.
((Hint: The problems start with the definitions of "prenatal care" and "infant mortality" - which are of course the main independent and dependent variables of interest, and only get worse from there.)
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Just look at statistics on infant mortality rate for mothers without prenatal care - nm
z
It's a funny thing about that.
Your posts here often coincide with posts on the conservative board, gt. Did you know that? Well, I am sure you did. But of course, no one accused you of that, did they. You are not only sick you are paranoid. And you don't know so very much. I have my own hunch about you and I am betting it is true.
Funny thing....
when majority rules for O to be president, that's the American way; when majority rules and prop 8 in California wins, meaning most Californians are against gay marriage, that's NOT the American way and it should be overturned. BTW, black turnout for O is what doomed gay marriage in California (70% of black voters in Cali voted Yes on prop 8).
Funny thing..........
How you chose to comment on MY post instead of the one above I was AGREEING with!
Speaks louder than words!
Funny thing about polls
This year for the first time, I have been polled probably EVERY WEEK for the last 4-6 weeks. Other years, nothing. So, if I am any kind of example, there is little wonder the polls change so little. They poll the same people every time!
funny! mine told me the same thing a few minutes ago...lol nm
x
He wan't taking care of a 4-mo old Down infant
nm
It's not "infanticide". It's not a developed infant -
And where is YOUR 'tolerance', Church-Lady? If you wish to chose birth instead of terminating a pregnancy, that's YOUR right. But you and your little blinker-wearin', bible-quoting friends have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to make that decision for anyone else. PERIOD.
Religious fanatics like yourself need to get over your inadequacies, throw away the 'crutch' you lean on so heavily, keep your noses out of others' personal lives, and get some of your own.
if the infant has been temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb
x
Oh, honey - compared to me, Maxine's an infant.
x
Obama blocked the Born Alive Infant Protection Act....sm
He said there was a law on the books in Illinois to protect these babies. In this article, he says there was a bill federally that he *would have* voted for. He killed the bill in Illinois by sitting on it as head of the Health and Human Services Committee. Which is it, Obama?
Excerpted from CNS News: Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever.
He is so pro-abortion that he refused as an Illinois state senator to support legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions...
...State and federal versions of this bill became an issue earlier this decade because of "induced labor abortion." This is usually performed on a baby with Down's Syndrome or another problem discovered on the cusp of viability. A doctor medicates the mother to cause premature labor. Babies surviving labor are left untreated to die.
Jill Stanek, who was a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill., testified in the U.S. Congress in 2000 and 2001 about how "induced labor abortions" were handled at her hospital.
"One night," she said in testimony entered into the Congressional Record, "a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down's Syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have the time to hold him. I couldn't bear the thought of this suffering child lying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived."
In 2001, Illinois state Sen. Patrick O'Malley introduced three bills to help such babies. One required a second physician to be present at the abortion to determine if a surviving baby was viable. Another gave the parents or a public guardian the right to sue to protect the baby's rights. A third, almost identical to the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act President Bush signed in 2002, simply said a "homo sapiens" wholly emerged from his mother with a "beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles" should be treated as a "'person,' 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.'"
Stanek testified about these bills in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, where Obama served. She told me this week he was "unfazed" by her story of holding the baby who survived an induced labor abortion.
On the Illinois Senate floor, Obama was the only senator to speak against the baby-protecting bills. He voted "present" on each, effectively the same as a "no."
"Number one," said Obama, explaining his reluctance to protect born infants, "whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a 9-month old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute."
That June, the U.S. Senate voted 98-0 in favor of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (although it failed to become law that year). Pro-abortion Democrats supported it because the following language was added: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this section."
Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer explained that with this language the "amendment certainly does not attack Roe v. Wade."
On July 18, 2002, Democratic Sen. Harry Reid called for the bill to be approved by unanimous consent. It was.
That same year, the Illinois version of the bill came up again. Obama voted "no."
In 2003, Democrats took control of the Illinois Senate. Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services committee. The Born Alive Infant bill, now sponsored by Sen. Richard Winkel, was referred to this committee. Winkel also sponsored an amendment to make the Illinois bill identical to the federal law, adding -- word for word -- the language Barbara Boxer said protected Roe v. Wade. Obama still held the bill hostage in his committee, never calling a vote so it could be sent to the full senate.
A year later, when Republican U.S. senate candidate Alan Keyes challenged Obama in a debate for his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Bill, Obama said: "At the federal level there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe v. Wade. I would have voted for that bill."
In fact, Obama had personally killed exactly that bill. Source - CNS News
Where did these statistics come from?
Just curious. The oil supply is still finite and it is our mindset that needs to change, not the search for more sites of drilling. ANWR is a bandaid which will do more harm that good. If you cannot wrap your mind around environmental issues, how about survival. The state of our environment is a good predictor of our future. When the animals go, and the rivers go and the trees, etc. and all those other ridiculous things that conservatives believe to be an unnecessary bother to our quest for more, more, more...we go too. We are the stewards of our world but we live in it and rely on it too. Squander it, environment first, humans next. I realize it might not happen in our lifetime so who gives a flip but it will happen.
"Only after the last tree has been cut down, only after the last river has been poisoned, only after the last fish has been caught, only then will you find that money cannot be eaten." Cree Proverb
I know conservatives see this as tree-hugging drivel, but its true. No environment, no life.
Statistics don't lie. sm
In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.
In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.
In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.
In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.
Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office.
But in the middle of what the media tell us is a massively unpopular war, the Democrats picked up about 30 House seats and five to six Senate seats in a sixth-year election, with lots of seats still too close to call. Only for half-brights with absolutely no concept of yesterday is this a tsunami -- as MSNBC calls it -- rather than the death throes of a dying party.
During eight years of Clinton -- the man Democrats tell us was the greatest campaigner ever, a political genius, a heartthrob, Elvis! -- Republicans picked up a total of 49 House seats and nine Senate seats in two midterm elections. Also, when Clinton won the presidency in 1992, his party actually lost 10 seats in the House -- only the second time in the 20th century that a party won the White House but lost seats in the House.
Meanwhile, the Democrats' epic victory this week, about which songs will be sung for generations, means that in two midterm elections Democrats were only able to pick up about 30 seats in the House and four seats in the Senate -- and that's assuming they pick up every seat that is currently too close to call. (The Democrats' total gain is less than this week's gain because Bush won six House and two Senate seats in the first midterm election.)
So however you cut it, this midterm proves that the Iraq war is at least more popular than Bill Clinton was.
Maybe statistics should say...
Maybe instead of statistics saying how many white, hispanics, blacks or whatever races there are in America (after all it doesn't matter what nationality your heritage is from as long as you pay your taxes), maybe a better poll (statistics or whatever you want to call it) would be to tell let us know how many illegals we have versus the people who came here and are legally working and paying their taxes like the rest of us. I could give a you know what about races. I come from a family of diverse people (grandmother born and raised in Puerto Rico, grandfather born and raised in Canada, other grandmother from England, and other grandfather from Ireland - but they all went through the correct channels to be American citizens and are legal and paid their taxes along with the rest of Americans.
I seriously doubt your statistics.
And the truth is, the man whose article you posted has an agenda. I don't listen to things like this from either side. Conspiracy theories are tiresome.
Statistics can be spun anyway you want.
none
depression statistics
This sounds familiar:
http://eh.net/Clio/Publications/unemployment.html
The statistics lie then? Dont think so. They are
nm
Some interesting statistics
Cost breakdown between House and Senate"
http://www.c-span.org/special/econ_stimulus2.aspx
How much each state will get:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-STIMULUS0109.html
And where do you get your statistics, other than Canada?
#
And where do you get your statistics, other than Canada?
#
OMG. Fine...go look at the crime statistics.
nm
Apparently you don't understand statistics or science. Get educated, please!!
It's not scientifically sound to make pseudo-scientific statements about U.S. obesity based on a television program you saw that featured some obese people in it. But it seems when it comes to scientific fact, statistics or the truth - you CONS don't have a clue.
Rankings: Obesity Rates Grew In Every State But Oregon
Mississippi Ranked Heaviest State
POSTED: 8:29 am PDT August 23, 2005
UPDATED: 9:34 am PDT August 23, 2005
The obesity epidemic isn't winding down -- in fact, it's expanding, according to state rankings released Tuesday by Trust for America's Health, a nonprofit health advocacy group.
Obesity rates continued to rise last year in every state but Oregon. Mississippi ranked as the heaviest state, Colorado as the least heavy, according to the report, titled F as in Fat: How Obesity Policies are Failing in America, 2005.
The rankings are based on averages of three years of data from 2002 to 2004 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Hawaii was not included in the report.
About 64.5 percent of adult Americans are either overweight or obese. The report found that more than 25 percent of adults in 10 states are obese, including in Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Texas, Michigan, Kentucky, Indiana and South Carolina.
already heard this - wasn't funny then, not funny now!
x
But valuing over the price of a dollar is a right thing wing thing, so you are on the wrong board. n
x
I never said it's a bad thing, it is a good thing....nm
nm
This is funny.nm
x
So are so funny
LOL, your posts get funnier and funnier..with more hate shining through, LOL.
This is so funny! Thank you.
I copied it and sent it to everyone I know, and they love it, too. 
OMG! Too funny!!
Especially the guy who said he was in favor of national healthcare because he works 40 hours a week and his benefits are terrible. Yet he didn't know that Bush doesn't WANT him to have good medical benefits.
The last guy was right on the money (even if he didn't know Bush's name): Bush SHOULD be over there with a gun in his hand since he started this mess.
Someone should point out to these people who can't remember that his name IS what he is: BU_ _ SH _ _!
Vanna... I wanna buy a vowel.
That's funny. No, I am most
Too funny - here's 1 more
Donald Rumsfeld was meeting with George W for their daily brief regarding the war in Iraq. Rumsfeld said to George, And yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed in Iraq. Bush is visibly distraught; hanging his head, wringing his hands. He finally looks up at Rumsfeld and says, My God, that's terrible. How many are in a Brazilian?
This is what is funny about this?
They have made up their minds they have got this thing won just like they did in 2004. They don't even entertain the possibility that they will lose. They are so egotistical to think they might even throw the elections to make the Republicans look like fools. This is along the same thought process that they think they won by losing California primaries and losing on Prop. 50.
I think they know they're in trouble, but have chosen to lay their strategy out like they've got things under control. The Democrat blogs are all up in arms about what is happening with the party. Let's just say the extreme left is very unhappy with them right now, and they think the extreme left is their bread and butter. They thought that in 2004 and look where it got them.
Wow, this really shows how screwed up they are, not you dem, but your party.
LOL - too funny.
Too funny. One of the best
http://seattle.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?id=1400 David Horsey from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Mike Keefe from The Denver Post consistenly nail it....too good.
It's almost funny to me
How heated this debate has gotten. When I looked at that site I posted, where it compares the current legislation and the proposed legislation, it doesn't look all that different, just more funding so that more children qualify.
Funny that. sm
Yours and one other are the only bad comments about her I have seen. it doesnt' appear to be working.
Too funny
Unfortunately too true.
I don't think it was funny....like I said, if he DID say it...
she should have slapped him silly right there in front of the cameras and everybody. But it IS rumor. It was told, supposedly, by 3 reporters from Arizona to this guy writing a book who has a bone to pick with McCain. As to not coming forward because of fear of retaliation...I don't buy them for a nanosecond. I am sure when this guy went looking for dirt some money crossed hands and a lot of embellishing went on...like any political smear book on any political candidate. When you can't deal with real issues that can be proven or disproven (Read "The Case Against Barack Obama" and you will know what I mean). There is none of the personal smear tactic where innuendo and "anonymous" quotes are used. Just plain simple historical fact that can be proven. THAT is the kind of information I pay attention to. Not the "anonymous" rumor stuff.
Obviously if it DID happen they wish it never happened. Obama wishes someone had not been taping when Wright went off on his rants. Obama wishes no one had checked on his fib about voting against saving babies who survive abortion. McCain wishes he hadn't done the things he did to cause his first marriage to fail. Everyone has regrets.
What about all the rumors and innuendo about Hillary Clinton bathmouthing the secret service people and calling them names every bit as hateful as what the rumor says JOhn McCain called his wife? I just chalked that up to rumor and innuendo because it could not be proven...just like I am doing about the McCain thing.
As to them denying it...why bring more attention to it...ever heard of "I think he doth protest too much?" I don't blame them. I would not dignify the accusation with a denial either.
DO YOU THINK THAT'S FUNNY?????
x
Funny...no.
Sad and pathetic......yes. How can they ban one speaker because of his affair and lies and yet let another man speak who did the exact same thing. The only difference is that Hilliary was not dying when Bill shoved a cigar up Monica's.....well....you get the idea.
Something funny about
the sandbox. Your subject line is a phrase I used a while back when I was on the run from the Bible thumpers. Their fearless leader will be hopelessly confused now that the libs are coming out in droves sporting all kinds of intimidating intelligence. Their heads snap around like Linda Blair in the Exorcist as they spin themselves into the ground and especially when the same phrases and concepts start showing up from all different directions. They really do not know what to do when they can't dominate the board and woop up on one lib at a time...seems to be their limit.
too funny
Yeah and McCain has a biracial love child..........just ask GW, his campaign told everybody the REAL truth. O is a closet muslim (just ask the mental giants on this board!). He eats baby brains for breakfast. He wants to teach kinder-kids the proper way to put on a condom. He's hiding, he's hiding, he's hiding..........but, he hasn't been able to drop a decent deuce since the onset of his campaign because the media is so far up his bum. Bad Obama. Bad, bad, bad. Spank him, spank him hard. Yeah, just like that. And the truth shall set you free.
Too funny!
I will throw softly here :-) I guess my point is, and again, I may be showing my ignorance on the subject. I am a Christian, coming from a very fundamental background, but have since strayed from so much of the legalism. I am beginning to see a lot of things from a different light, if you know what I mean. I was taught that same-sex relationships was a horrible, horrible sin. I no longer feel that way about the issue. I do have questions though. We as a human race are here because of heterosexual relationships are we not? Not from same-sex relationships. Would we be extinct if that was all there was, and if it were the norm? I have worked with gays and lesbians, I have been neighbors of gays and lesbians, as I mentioned two of my best friends are gays and lesbians. I do not have an issue --- REALLY! It is just some back of the mind questions that I have. I guess we all have questions and may never know the answers. I am not voting against gay marriages. Yes, your same-sex relationship is your business as my heterosexual relationship is mine - - but it seems as if no one is questioning mine - - Is this because it is right, and the norm??? What exactly are the issues here??.
that's okay - it was funny the first
time. I imagined myself as a human broach.
It is just too funny
to see it happen though. I know they are trying to distract with stupid things and it really shows this individuals ignorance. But, it is an amusing way to kill a few minutes while my new software downloads!
I think she is funny. . .
I get tired of the pompous know-it-all attitudes.
too funny
x
Too funny
That gave me my laugh for the night. Thanks,
too funny - thanks
 
OMG - too funny
My friend emailed me a few weeks ago and said if he says "uh" one more time...
|
