'Murica

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 2:48 am

Anaxagoras wrote:Apparently no studies (that I could find) have compared the risk of maternal mortality between out-of-hospital and in-hospital births, but the risk of infant mortality is about double.

Wikipedia wrote:A 2014 US survey of medical studies found that perinatal mortality rates were triple that of hospital births, and a US nationwide study over 13 million births on a 3-year span (2007-2010) found that births at home were roughly 10 times as likely to be stillborn (14 times in first-born babies) and almost four times as likely to have neonatal seizures or serious neurological dysfunction when compared to babies born in hospitals, while a 2007 UK survey found that perinatal mortality rates were only slightly higher in that country than planned hospital births for low-risk pregnancies. Both baby's and mother's higher mortalities are associated with the inability to timely assist mothers with emergency procedures in case of complications during labour, as well as with widely varying licensing and training standards for birth attendants between different states and countries.

(my emphasis)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_birth (with slightly NSFW picture)

From what I read (in French, so I don't link), it is still widespread in the Netherlands: good counseling, good teams to assist the mothers at home, and hospitals at ~ 10 min drive in case of complications, even if the percentages declined from 29,4 % in 2005 down to 15,9 % in 2013.
But some hospitals have also made an effort to make things look less "technical", hiding the gear, &c.

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 3:12 am

Witness wrote:Why trains suck in America

Because government ruined the industry.

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 3:17 am

Anaxagoras wrote: Could there be another explanation?

People illegally crossing the border into Texas with an advanced pregnancy, coming now because of the fear mongering about Trump closing the crossings?

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 3:19 am

JEROME DA GNOME wrote:
Anaxagoras wrote: Could there be another explanation?
People illegally crossing the border into Texas with an advanced pregnancy, coming now because of the fear mongering about Trump closing the crossings?

No, this is years ago. Trump has nothing to do with it.

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 3:24 am

Anaxagoras wrote: One possibility is that the mortality risk increases with age (by a lot over age 35):

Right, its been increasing nationwide.

Liberals sold women the lie that they could start a career and then try to have kids in their 30's, and its not working out.

http://15130-presscdn-0-89.pagely.netdn ... y_rate.jpg

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 3:26 am

Anaxagoras wrote: No, this is years ago. Trump has nothing to do with it.

You don't think people that were thinking about jumping the border are not taking the opportunity to jump now before the possibility of a Trump shutdown of crossings?

That is denying basic human behavior.

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 3:46 am

Before 2015, nobody seriously thought Trump might be president, so no.

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 3:55 am

Ohh, I see your point.

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 3:56 am

Liberalism is killing women by promoting late in life childbirth.

gnome · Post by **gnome** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 9:08 pm

How dare those liberals, telling women they can have a career. Line em up!

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 10:34 pm

gnome wrote:How dare those liberals, telling women they can have a career. Line em up!

No, the lie was you can have both.

ed · Post by ed » Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:12 pm

gnome wrote:How dare those liberals, telling women they can have a career. Line em up!

Thats an interesting question. I've met not a few women who had their careers and either didn't have kids or had them late. They have a rather jaundiced view of the rosy "have it all" philosophy.

As an employer I'd be very careful about hiring a young married woman into a position where I really really depended on her being there. As an entrepreneur it would be irresponsible.

Grammatron · Post by **Grammatron** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:23 pm

ed wrote:As an employer I'd be very careful about hiring a young married woman into a position where I really really depended on her being there. As an entrepreneur it would be irresponsible.

Is it based on evidence or do you just assume someone having a child is incapable of being a productive employee?

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:31 pm

Abdul Alhazred wrote:No. The lie is that most working class women would even have the choice.

Worked out for the tax man, now it takes two people to provide the same as only one before.

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:35 pm

Grammatron wrote:Is it based on evidence or do you just assume someone having a child is incapable of being a productive employee?

I don't think that's it at all. Gender doesn't matter here. The point is its very difficult to do a good job raising a family and good a good job with a career if you are doing both.

eta: any single parent is at a disadvantage

gnome · Post by **gnome** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:35 pm

JEROME DA GNOME wrote:
gnome wrote:How dare those liberals, telling women they can have a career. Line em up!
No, the lie was you can have both.

Don't give me that, we obviously should not have let them out of the kitchen.

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:38 pm

gnome wrote:Don't give me that, we obviously should not have let them out of the kitchen.

Let who out of the Kitchen? My best friend in elementary school had a working mother and a stay at home father.

Sorry that you got suckered into advocating double taxation on the working class because you were taught to salivate when the bell rings.

Rob Lister · Post by **Rob Lister** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:42 pm

Gnome, you're being a fag. Just so you know.

gnome · Post by **gnome** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:43 pm

I'm playing strawman ping pong. He throws em, I throw them

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:56 pm

No strawmen.

Has not the economy progressively required two income households to pay for what a one income household could pay for 50 years ago?

gnome · Post by **gnome** » Tue Sep 13, 2016 12:06 am

Your strawman is describing what "Liberals" "told" women they could do. The liberal line is for women to be able to choose. The timing of it is up to individuals, not ideology.

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Tue Sep 13, 2016 12:14 am

Nope, Liberals Told women to go to work without telling the men to stay home.

Men staying home and women working, who cares? Nobody. Not the problem.

The problem is Liberals were suckered into promoting a double taxation on the working class.

gnome · Post by **gnome** » Tue Sep 13, 2016 12:20 am

Now my head hurts with that one.

gnome · Post by **gnome** » Tue Sep 13, 2016 12:20 am

JEROME DA GNOME wrote:Nope, Liberals Told women to go to work without telling the men to stay home.

Men staying home and women working, who cares? Nobody. Not the problem.

The problem is Liberals were suckered into promoting a double taxation on the working class.

Ok, I'll play that game. Nope, they didn't. Wanna go back and forth on that for a while?

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Tue Sep 13, 2016 12:22 am

Really, can you show me the liberal movement to get men to stay home?

ed · Post by ed » Tue Sep 13, 2016 12:57 am

Grammatron wrote:
ed wrote:As an employer I'd be very careful about hiring a young married woman into a position where I really really depended on her being there. As an entrepreneur it would be irresponsible.
Is it based on evidence or do you just assume someone having a child is incapable of being a productive employee?

I have had women leave me to go on maternity leave and not come back, after staying out the max permissible time. It is irresponsible to hire a person in that risk group if you are going to need to depend upon them.

Grammatron · Post by **Grammatron** » Tue Sep 13, 2016 1:31 am

ed wrote:
Grammatron wrote:
ed wrote:As an employer I'd be very careful about hiring a young married woman into a position where I really really depended on her being there. As an entrepreneur it would be irresponsible.
Is it based on evidence or do you just assume someone having a child is incapable of being a productive employee?
I have had women leave me to go on maternity leave and not come back, after staying out the max permissible time. It is irresponsible to hire a person in that risk group if you are going to need to depend upon them.

Were those women valuable employees prior to maternity leave?

gnome · Post by **gnome** » Tue Sep 13, 2016 1:45 am

JEROME DA GNOME wrote:Really, can you show me the liberal movement to get men to stay home?

Can you show me the liberal movement to say who should be working and who should not?

Let me put it this way--I've always said if you truly understand someone else's ideology, you can explain it in a manner that they would agree with, even if you still disagree. You're falling well short of that standard.

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Tue Sep 13, 2016 1:51 am

Work is liberation, war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Tue Sep 13, 2016 1:53 am

I know what you think you stand for, I am explaining how you were tricked onto other results.

Nyarlathotep · Post by **Nyarlathotep** » Tue Sep 13, 2016 1:55 am

http://images.mentalfloss.com/sites/def ... _Small.jpg

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Tue Sep 13, 2016 1:55 am

ed wrote: I have had women leave me to go on maternity leave and not come back, after staying out the max permissible time. It is irresponsible to hire a person in that risk group if you are going to need to depend upon them.

I have had young college educated men go on vacation and not come back, after straying out the max permissible time.

Gender is not the issue.

gnome · Post by **gnome** » Tue Sep 13, 2016 2:47 am

JEROME DA GNOME wrote:I know what you think you stand for, I am explaining how you were tricked onto other results.

It's very convenient when nobody but you has a legitimate philosophy--everyone else is just manipulators, shills or useful idiots.

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Tue Sep 13, 2016 4:57 am

Trying to reason with Mildred is a waste of time, gnome.

It's true, there is a slightly higher risk of death for women who have children later, but nothing like the risk from 100 years ago or more. Thanks science! (oh right, science is fake, damn. Forgot about that.)
All in all it might be a worthy trade-off for many women.

Again, Texas is an outlier here. Their rates doubled in the space of 4 years (actually 1 year essentially), which coincided with the closure of a lot of women's health care clinics. Clearly something else is going on there besides older women having children.

Here is the long term trend through the late 1990s:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4838a2.htm

At the beginning of the 20th century, for every 1000 live births, six to nine women in the United States died of pregnancy-related complications, and approximately 100 infants died before age 1 year (1,2). From 1915 through 1997, the infant mortality rate declined greater than 90% to 7.2 per 1000 live births, and from 1900 through 1997, the maternal mortality rate declined almost 99% to less than 0.1 reported death per 1000 live births (7.7 deaths per 100,000 live births in 1997) (3) (Figure 1 and Figure 2).

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrht ... 38a2f1.gif

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrht ... 38a2f2.gif

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Tue Sep 13, 2016 11:39 am

Well, when the results are in, and they are a benefit to the few elite to the detriment of the vast working class, and the denial continues... shoe fits and all that.

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Tue Sep 13, 2016 11:52 am

Does anyone here have access to the actual paper?

http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Ci ... ity.2.aspx

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Wed Oct 05, 2016 9:12 pm

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8392/8477 ... 350f_b.jpg

Grammatron · Post by **Grammatron** » Wed Oct 05, 2016 9:16 pm

The flames on the muzzle brake really brings out the 'Muricaness.

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Wed Oct 05, 2016 9:32 pm

The need a military tank in the war on drugs?

pillory · Post by **pillory** » Wed Oct 05, 2016 9:38 pm

you need boys---pojat to finnish
shemp doesn't care anymore
[bbvideo=560,315]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-jIz7G8TLw[/bbvideo]