Tuesday, May 09, 2006

A Paradox for Conservatives

From CNN Tuesday, May 9, 2006; Posted: 12:37 p.m. EDT:
An estimated 2 million babies die within their first 24 hours each year worldwide and the United States has the second worst newborn mortality rate in the developed world, according to a new report.

"American babies are three times more likely to die in their first month as children born in Japan, and newborn mortality is 2.5 times higher in the United States than in Finland, Iceland or Norway, Save the Children researchers found."

Japan offers free health care services for all pregnant women and babies while only the rich and insured get adequate health care in the United States.

This poses a paradox for conservative types who claim they are pro-life yet don't seem to care about life after it has been born. After that point, it seems like if the mother is poor, it's the babies fault and therefore should have to suffer due to the laziness of it's uneducated, unwed, teenage mother. If the United States, due to its stingy conservative capitalist leanings, allows 5 out of every 1000 of it's babies to die within a year after birth, how can that be labeled as pro-life? Why aren't "pro-lifers" out protesting in front of Capital Hill to get equal funding for neo-natal care? Aren't the planned parenthoods the wrong place for these people? Shouldn't they quit worrying about a morning after pill which blocks life before it even begins and start worrying about the babies that are alive now yet dying? Why isn't this issue on the top of the pro-life movements agenda? Why haven't the Republicans told the pro-lifers that they don't care about life after it has been born and if it happens to be poor and or black?

Here is a list of some of the top 10 "Socialist" countries with the lowest infant mortality rates:

Japan
Norway
Finland
Iceland
Czech Republic
Austria
France
Germany
Sweden
Italy

These will also be the same countries you see talked about on conservative blogs as being "Socialist" because they don't have the room for all their people to live in gated suburban sprawl communities and they have low rates of poverty where the rich have to pay a higher rate of taxes than the rich in the U.S.

If you were a baby who had no say in what kind of family you were born into, would you prefer to be born in one of the countries from the list above or in the United States?


14 comments:

Grant said...

Japan rulz! I'm not surprised by that statistic after I read that (compared to other "civilized" countries) the US has the second highest obesity rate, the lowest mortality (in terms of years lived - our people die nearly a decade before the Japanese), and the highest amount spent on health care per person (even though we're not getting as good results).

Toad734 said...

Thats actually true, the US Government actually spends more on Health Care than a lot of nations with nationalized health care. One, we have more people but two we pay whatever the drug companies tell us to.

Unitari said...

But that's just what God intended! ;)

NewsBlog 5000 said...

Let the market decide. Babies will live when it becomes profitable in the free market. If we didn't have liberal child labor laws, more people would be interested in keeping babies alive.

BRUISER said...

Let the market decide....like we are with Healthcare, right? Thats so funny....

By the way Latvia has a better rate than we do as well.

----

They probably have better Homeland Security as well with the likes of Negroponte and Goss at the Helm of ours....

Mike V. said...

Gilded Age, here we come!

Oh, wait, we might already be there.

Erudite Redneck said...

Come on, there are no paradoxes when you have the Truth!

Good stuff, Toad. Good, sad stuff.

Kathy Schrenk said...

That is quite a good point, Toad. Had to link to it on my blog.

UnfrozenCavegirlBlogger said...

If I am to care about someone's children more than the parents do then there's really something wrong long before the parent who doesn't care enough about their own children to ensure their health and welfare after they're born give birth to them.


You and your buddies make a clear point about lack of self respect and responsibilty.

You have none.

Toad734 said...

So you are saying that you are pro-death and that the sins of the parents should be inflicted upon their children. In other words, children who have shitty parents should die because its their falt their parents suck???

UnfrozenCavegirlBlogger said...

In other words, children who have shitty parents should die because its their falt their parents suck???

I think that describes your beloved abortion.

YOU infer that all the time, silly man.

Toad734 said...

No because children are not getting aborted; embryos are. And embryo is no more a person than sperm. Both have the potential to be a person but are not yet. I have never seen a child walking around who was all of the sudden aborted.

But you need to answer the question, why do pro-lifers only care about "life" before it's born?

UnfrozenCavegirlBlogger said...

Toad, you made the reference to PRE-natal care.

Hello!


As to your question why do pro-lifers only care about "life" before it's born?.
That's simply stupid and no, I don't need to answer that...because it's asenine.

Toad734 said...

Or asinine.

So you don't care about life after it's born? Or you don't care about poor people’s lives after they are born? Or is it black people? Or just the white, upper-middle class white babies? Or just babies you won’t ever have to deal with?

Quick question; if you are so pro-life and it's such an issue for you and you feel like anyone can just give up their baby for adoption and that child can always have a great life, how many black babies have you adopted?

Shouldn't the adoption issue only be applicable when there are no more children in foster care?

Oh wait, that’s right you don't want gay people to adopt either... Hmmm... So just who is going to adopt those babies? Maybe we will be lucky enough for some African and Chinese celebrity couples to come over and adopt them all.