Dying: Millions of Women in Childbirth, Newborns and Young Children

This is a recorded message.

[This post isn't abstract enough, note please the right wing attitude, in order to make this thread more pertinent to the wingnuts it is essential you mention: freedom, killing babies, taxes, government, social justice, liberty, tea party, Sarah, Michelle, the constitution, Ann, Rush, Glenn, or any other Pavlovian wingnut word that sets off the receptors in their heads and brings forth anguish and vituperation for whomever is causing whatever it is they are causing, as whatever they are causing conflicts with the key memes of wingnuts everywhere.]

Try again, children dying is only important if they are really tiny and can be used as a moral crutch, living breathing children don't count, remember that.
 
Last edited:
Having a baby is a risky thing. I get so irritated with smug men who say stupid things like, "you're having a baby, it's not a terminal disease, it's NATURAL."

Fuck them. Women die even with the best of care, and babies are born with horrible defects and are even born dead, with the best of care.
 
This is a recorded message.

[This post isn't abstract enough, note please the right wing attitude, in order to make this thread more pertinent to the wingnuts it is essential you mention: freedom, killing babies, taxes, government, social justice, liberty, tea party, Sarah, Michelle, Ann, Rush, Glenn, or another Pavlovian wingnut word that sets off the receptors in their heads and brings forth anguish and vituperation for whomever is causing whatever it is they are causing as whatever they are causing conflicts with the key memes noted above.]

Try again, children dying is only important if they are really tiny and can be used as a moral crutch.

Well, you were right about it being a recorded message, anyway. Aside from that, this is a message board, not a newspaper. We don't report the news, we discuss, debate, and offer opinions on it. Therefore, for a post to be pertinent, it needs to include discussion, debate, or at least an opinion. (I can get a crayon and draw you a picture if this is too complicated for you.) Otherwise, it lacks . . . wait for it . . . a POINT. Which was what I said earlier, but you didn't understand without tons of exposition and dumbed-down explanations. :ahole-1:
 
Having a baby is a risky thing. I get so irritated with smug men who say stupid things like, "you're having a baby, it's not a terminal disease, it's NATURAL."

Fuck them. Women die even with the best of care, and babies are born with horrible defects and are even born dead, with the best of care.

Last I checked, terminal diseases are "natural", too. And hey, LIFE is natural, and THAT sucker kills everyone who gets it eventually.
 
That's sad. So, what should we do about it?

Immie

Well you tell us? We could as those on the right do, say if you can't afford great care, ain't my problem, or you could do the more moral, just thing and do unto others as you would have done to you. Support great care for all. Above you can can see which side, picks which side of this pretty simple moral issue. Charity or greed, seems easy to me.


"Acts are not made right or wrong simply by people believing that they are right or wrong. ... Relativists think that moral absolutism is a bad view, encouraging intolerance and so on. But I ask them: Is absolutism only bad in a relative way -- only wrong for them and not necessarily for others? If so, then it might not be wrong for me. I can believe in it and act on it. On the other hand, if it is wrong for everybody, then it is absolutely wrong, which contradicts the relativist’s [own] position. So moral relativism is either self-refuting or it has no claim on my moral beliefs." Colin McGinn
 
That's sad. So, what should we do about it?

Immie

Well you tell us? We could as those on the right do, say if you can't afford great care, ain't my problem, or you could do the more moral, just thing and do unto others as you would have done to you. Support great care for all. Above you can can see which side, picks which side of this pretty simple moral issue. Charity or greed, seems easy to me.


"Acts are not made right or wrong simply by people believing that they are right or wrong. ... Relativists think that moral absolutism is a bad view, encouraging intolerance and so on. But I ask them: Is absolutism only bad in a relative way -- only wrong for them and not necessarily for others? If so, then it might not be wrong for me. I can believe in it and act on it. On the other hand, if it is wrong for everybody, then it is absolutely wrong, which contradicts the relativist’s [own] position. So moral relativism is either self-refuting or it has no claim on my moral beliefs." Colin McGinn

Why is it me that always has to provide the solutions? ;)

I'd be for the charity myself, but I don't think that it is the proper place for the federal government to provide that charity. But, in reality there are a lot of things in the U.S. Federal Budget that I would eliminate completely before I would touch things like Welfare or even Social Security although I believe both systems need to be improved.

As for Health Care Reform, sorry, I see that bill as a major problem unfolding. I would sooner have my taxes increased significantly and provide the uninsured with private insurance or even medicaid than to go the route I see us going today.

Immie
 
Maternal mortality rate seen as a key way to measure improvement in a nation’s health...
cool.gif

Asia struggles to reduce childbirth deaths
Wed, Oct 18, 2017 - It seemed a simple statement: Women should not die from complications related to pregnancy or childbirth.
Yet two years after world leaders agreed to 17 global goals at the UN, including the childbirth target, countries in the Asia-Pacific region are grappling to twin the rhetoric with social, cultural and political realities. An estimated 85,000 mothers died in 2015 from childbirth in the region, home to more than half of the world’s population and some of its fastest growing economies, UN figures show, with the maternal mortality rate seen as a key way to measure improvement in a nation’s health. These deaths accounted for 28 percent of the global total, translating into a maternal mortality ratio (MMR) of 127 deaths per 100,000 live births, according to the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), which released its latest State of the World Population Report yesterday. Up to 90 percent of these deaths occur in 12 countries, according to UNFPA, whose officials have calculated which are likely to meet the global target of reducing its MMR to below 70 deaths per 100,000 live births by 2030.

Bangladesh, Laos, East Timor and Indonesia are seen as likely to meet the deadline. Afghanistan, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Myanmar, Pakistan, India, Cambodia and the Philippines are seen as failing to reach the target by varying degrees. Reducing maternal deaths requires political will, government foresight and access to family planning, campaigners said. “[This is) an issue that’s still too often seen as medical, and strictly related to women’s life. It’s not,” said Federica Maurizio, a sexual health and reproductive rights expert at UNFPA in Bangkok. “Maternal health ... is one of the key indicators that really tells you how much the health system in a country is able to provide for the people,” she said. Oona Campbell, professor of epidemiology and reproductive health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said it raises wider issues of women’s place in society. “Do we care about women? Do we think it’s not a problem if the wife dies? Is this something we care about enough to deliver services that are good quality?” she said.

Campbell said it was not entirely accurate to chart a nation’s progress using a global goal. Another way to measure progress, she said, was to use country level targets, such as aiming to reduce maternal deaths by at least two-thirds from 2010, and for no country to have an MMR greater than 140 deaths per 100,000 live births by 2030. Campbell also said that data is weak in many countries due to a lack of civil registration and poor cause-of-death records. This could mean calculations of Afghanistan’s dramatic improvement, hailed as one of the gains of foreign aid there, may be an overestimate, she said. UN figures showed the maternal mortality rate had dropped to 396 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2015 from 1,600 deaths in 2002 after the US-led invasion that ousted the Taliban after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on the US.

Afghanistan’s own data put its MMR three times higher. UNFPA deputy representative to Afghanistan Mateen Shaheen said women’s access to healthcare in Afghanistan remained tricky as culture dictates that women are only seen by female healthcare workers. UNFPA operates 124 clinics staffed by women and aims to nearly double that by the late next year.

MORE
 

Forum List

Back
Top