Abortion, infant mortality, and conservative Christians

[barts]

In the the United States there is a large segment of the population that is extremely anti-abortion. This group is predominately conservative and highly religious--and mostly Christian.

What is also true is that the US also has one of the highest infant morality rates in the world, particularly among developed nations.

Many (perhaps most) of the people most opposed to abortion, it seems, are the same group opposed to providing the publicly-funded medical care that would save infants' lives. This is certainly true of most of this groups' political leaders.

Publicly-funded, high quality medical care is the reason other countries' infant mortality rates are much lower than those in the United States.

This to me represents an hypocrisy of demonstrably deadly proportion. This group would compel a women to have a child, and deny the child the care that would help insure his or her life beyond a few months of age.

I wonder how Christian conservatives rationalize their love for the unborn with, what seems to be, a callous and cruel contempt for infants. Do not living infants deserve as much love and protection as the unborn? It seems the answer is "No!" for many if not most Christian conservatives.

[Dogwalker]

It is a hypocrisy.

In this nation, we worship the fetus and feel contempt for the poor.

[Derach]

Of course the US has high infant mortality rate ... we PAY people to have children when they are incapable of supporting themselves, then turn their healthcare over to the government. What else would you expect but a monumentally ineffective and inefficient system that produces terrible results in measurable standards?

If you really want a kick in the nuts ... factor in the per capita expenditure on pre-natal and infant health and then see where the US falls ... betchya its not in the top 100.

[grandpa]

Of course the US has high infant mortality rate ...
we PAY people to have children when they are incapable
of supporting themselves, then turn their healthcare over to the
government.

So, in your view, it's not a legitimate role.

I understand that, yet feel strange about the double standard. Why, under Republican philosophy, can the government help the super-rich, yet not help people who actually might need it? It sounds like class warfare to me, and a not-very-well concealed social darwinism or eugenics:
"In Germany they first came for the Communists and I didn't speak up because
I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't
speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me -
and by that time no one was left to speak up..." Pastor Martin Niemoller

Grandpa h.

[Dieval]

Anyone have a link to the actual report?

[Derach]

So, in your view, it's not a legitimate role.

I understand that, yet feel strange about the double standard. Why, under Republican philosophy, can the government help the super-rich, yet not help people who actually might need it? It sounds like class warfare to me, and a not-very-well concealed social darwinism or eugenics:
"In Germany they first came for the Communists and I didn't speak up because
I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't
speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me -
and by that time no one was left to speak up..." Pastor Martin Niemoller

Grandpa h.

seems like 2 separate issues. infant mortality, and you're perception of the 'super-rich' (is that the new catchphrase for 'billionaires and millionaires'?) and their treatment by government.

You were kind enough to provide objective data supporting the claim that infant mortality in the US is substantially higher than elsewhere.

I don't know by what criteria you are asserting that the super rich (setting the definition of this vague term aside) in the US are treated better than the super rich elsewhere.

Do the super rich in the us have lower infant mortality rates than the poor? I don't really understand the connection between wealth and the national infant mortality rate.

I don't really know how pandering to the super rich by the repubs (the dems do it too) relates to infant mortality ... but I'd agree that policies like abstinence first that cost billions and don't produce results leave one shaking their head when you see the repub platform on abortion.

Just looks like your trying to marry two unrelated topics under the heading of hypocricy and I don't know if it fits. Yes, repubs (and dems) pander to the super rich ... yes many repubs are pro-choice (inexplicably) ... yes the US has a horrendous infant mortality rate ... but I don't know if those facts are as closely related as you say.

[Derach]

Anyone have a link to the actual report?

there is much data supporting infant mortality rates .... by most standards, the US ranks between 35-46 globally. Most charts use # of infant deaths under one month of age per 1000 births. The us is over 6.

List of countries by infant mortality rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2091rank.html
That one's inverted ... worst to first

barts provided a link to the report he quoted

[Derach]

Publicly-funded, high quality medical care is the reason other countries' infant mortality rates are much lower than those in the United States.

The poor in the US have access to publicly-funded, high quality medical care.

[SoylentGreen]

Anyone have a link to the actual report?

PLoS Medicine: Neonatal Mortality Levels for 193 Countries in 2009 with Trends since 1990: A Systematic Analysis of Progress, Projections, and Priorities

[Aussiemodo]

In the the United States there is a large segment of the population that is extremely anti-abortion. This group is predominately conservative and highly religious--and mostly Christian.

What is also true is that the US also has one of the highest infant morality rates in the world, particularly among developed nations.

Many (perhaps most) of the people most opposed to abortion, it seems, are the same group opposed to providing the publicly-funded medical care that would save infants' lives. This is certainly true of most of this groups' political leaders.

Publicly-funded, high quality medical care is the reason other countries' infant mortality rates are much lower than those in the United States.

This to me represents an hypocrisy of demonstrably deadly proportion. This group would compel a women to have a child, and deny the child the care that would help insure his or her life beyond a few months of age.

I wonder how Christian conservatives rationalize their love for the unborn with, what seems to be, a callous and cruel contempt for infants. Do not living infants deserve as much love and protection as the unborn? It seems the answer is "No!" for many if not most Christian conservatives.

The height of hypocrisy is how these creeps "love" their "god," who aborted the every unborn and living baby in world - because he objected to way people were fucking!

[Sum1sGruj]

Abortion is selfish, because the only reason one gets an abortion is for selfish reasons. Notice that married woman don't get abortions.

A lot of Christians are pro-life because abortion to them is the product of immorality to begin with. Secular people can hate Christian concepts all they want, but abortion wouldn't even be existent if they heeded that wisdom.

Everyone who is pro-choice is glad that their mother did not choose to abort them.

If people saw an image of what the fetus would turn out to be 5 years after it's conception, I doubt there would be half as many abortions.

The reason why it's not considered murder is because the human mind has this miraculous ability to provide an illusion of reason to account for things it doesn't want to face.

'The fetus is not sentient' or 'we waste eggs and seeds all the time'.
At the bottom of that logic, murdering a newborn is okay because hey, what real difference does it make if they are out of the womb?
So just in case any atheist wants to pull that card on Christians, just know that it fails under it's own pretenses.

God was putting things into motion, but instead of going into a big theological debate with that, I'll just say that if you don't want to understand the Bible, then pretty much anything you say in reference to it is just a big, worthless turd buried in the ground.

Ever see a gazelle get an abortion? When you go to an abortion clinic, they urge you to undergo counsel. This is from willing participants of aborting babies themselves.

Pro-choice is the hypocrisy.

[brendand]

Notice that married woman don't get abortions.

You really believe that no married woman has had an abortion?

Ever see a gazelle get an abortion?

Animals abandon and eat their own brood all the time.

Cats and Rabbits also have the ability to absorb their fetus if the conditions are not right for child birth. Would they go to hell for doing so?