1 million premature babies die each year, report finds

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: cubeless

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
So the OP is suggesting that we shouldn't do everything in our power to try and save every newborn baby due to the costs of trying?!

Wow. That is one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard.

I'd love to see the OP or Gonad approach a new mother and tell her that they are not going to try and save her baby's life because it might cost too much money.

how about that you subject the newborn to extended torture and then a large percentage die anyways or live substantially diminished lives?

we need to get over the 'we can fix anything' vanity and get a grip on the fact that death happens...

The OP and Gonad are suggesting that cost is the determining factor, not alleged pain and suffering. One of these two arguments is much less humane than the other... I'll let you figure out which one that is.

And, IMO, unless the baby itself tells them to pull the plug, or his/her parents do so, the Medical professionals, Government, and/or insurance companies have no fucking business making that decision for them. Period.

the government and insurance companies can decide not to pay for it. If you want to raise a future ward of the state, you can pay for it yourself.

 

[Kirby]

Winston FTW! :laugh:

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
You know it's not the first time this sort of thing has come up. The visionary Francis Galton predicted that the inferior would outbreed the superior and that's what happened. Right now we have a far far more expensive situation going on. Welfare moms without the sense to stop breeding have more children than those who work. They in turn have more children. There is no end. The parasites will outnumber the hosts and all will suffer.

I've never heard people discussing it before, but are 'welfare moms' a problem in countries with more developed social safety nets? You here people talking about them all the time (never seen one irl) so one might think they would be more prevalent as people moved to places with a stronger safety net.

Since the OP touched on preemies, let's be frank. The whole abortion argument is a complete nonsensical artifice. A baby is a baby depending on what side of the vaginal exit it's on? How does that matter in the context of long term human welfare?

typically they advocate the guideline of whether its capable of surviving without medical support ie ventilators, not which side of the cervix it happens to be resting on at a giving moment in time.

Every female pregnancy should be inspected. If there are genetic problems, end it. It would save so much suffering in the long run. Eventually we could eliminate birth defects, diabetes, low intelligence and other scourges. Who knows, maybe we could get to the point where we are able to predict who are most mentally adaptable with our Program.

for a parody post, this is actually pretty reasonable to a degree, at least insofar as is would make people more informed on their decisions, and certainly any test wouldn't have to be mandatory, though the state could subsidize it to achieve a better market outcome.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
The fact is all the money and resources being spent on lives at death's door would be better spent on others with a much better chance at survival and decent quality of life. Goes for preemies, goes for the extreme elderly. When you have to choose who lives and who dies it really sucks for some, but that's life. And I love how people are acting like these decisions aren't already being made right now. The cold hard truth is they are and they're being made badly.

The government was never supposed to have that power.

Whereas our founders tried to separate government and power, your centralized planning for it is the death knell of their design.

which founding fathers are you talking about?

the ones that thought only property owners should vote, the ones that though women were incapable of voting rationally, the ones that thought black people were fit only to be slaves and were 3/5ths of a person or the ones that actually were in favor of a strong central government?

states right mainly were pursued as a mechanism to not have to deal with the slavery issue, since that was a deal breaker if pursued on a national level.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
The fact is all the money and resources being spent on lives at death's door would be better spent on others with a much better chance at survival and decent quality of life. Goes for preemies, goes for the extreme elderly. When you have to choose who lives and who dies it really sucks for some, but that's life. And I love how people are acting like these decisions aren't already being made right now. The cold hard truth is they are and they're being made badly.

The government was never supposed to have that power.

Whereas our founders tried to separate government and power, your centralized planning for it is the death knell of their design.

And people were never supposed to live past certain afflictions we can now treat. These decisions have to be made, and are being made, and I'd rather them be made with efficient spending in mind as opposed to being profit driven. Be it by government, some medical regulatory board, or whatever.

My contention is that none of the above have the right to make these types of decisions; and that doing so should be criminalized as a capital offense. (edit: and yes, I certainly recognize the hypocrisy in this statement, but I don't give a flying fuck. I'd rather support one million preemies living with ailments than a single "person" who advocates their murder).

The patient and his/her kin are the only ones who should have the right to decide the fate of the newborns, elderly, or anyone in a vegetative state.

Doctors, insurance companies, and the Government have no fucking business making the decision for them. Period.

so are you going to force doctors to do it at the point of a gun?


IMO the opinion of the doctor should at least be taken heavily into the equation.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
All these inefficient expenditures are a big reason health care costs so much. Health care costing so much is why so many people don't have it. Not having health insurance is why a lot of people die. So who's really supporting death panels?

And personally, I pay for my own health insurance. I'm healthy, no chronic problems, and my bill is HIGH. Other people's decisions get reflected in my bills and I hate subsidizing waste and stupidity.

And yes I get mad at my neighbors when they waste electricity too.

So this simply boils down to killing the competition for health care because you deserve to have instead of them.

aren't you the guy thats always bitching about other undeserving people getting your tax dollars?

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: piasabird
The point is that having a baby is a very dangerous ordeal and babies die all the time. Many things can go wrong during the birthing process. There is a lot of research being done into the problems of premature births. It is possible that some environmental factors are causing premature birth like malnutrition or drinking too much soda or even something simple like the sweeteners in soda or drinking coffee. I know that High Fructose corn syrup can cause the body to create elevated levels of stress hormones, and also elevate blood pressure. It is most likely a variety of factors or something we have not thought about. I seriously doubt whether the government can solve a problem like this. It is more likely that some medical center will help to identify some of the factors.

The OP and Gonad are saying that the research into preemie care and their treatments after premature birth are a complete waste of money that could supposedly be better spent on someone/something else.

How do you feel about that?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
The fact is all the money and resources being spent on lives at death's door would be better spent on others with a much better chance at survival and decent quality of life. Goes for preemies, goes for the extreme elderly. When you have to choose who lives and who dies it really sucks for some, but that's life. And I love how people are acting like these decisions aren't already being made right now. The cold hard truth is they are and they're being made badly.

The government was never supposed to have that power.

Whereas our founders tried to separate government and power, your centralized planning for it is the death knell of their design.

And people were never supposed to live past certain afflictions we can now treat. These decisions have to be made, and are being made, and I'd rather them be made with efficient spending in mind as opposed to being profit driven. Be it by government, some medical regulatory board, or whatever.

Efficient spending? By the Government? You have got to be fucking kidding me.

health care systems in europe spend (much) less and get better results than our private model, infact the underfunded VA gets much better results while dealing with much sicker people for much less money. Keep playing that bogey man though brosef.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
the government and insurance companies can decide not to pay for it. If you want to raise a future ward of the state, you can pay for it yourself.

Another Death Panel supporter? Shocker.

That's mighty white of ya.

According to mikethefuckingidiot, only rich people can have premature babies who survive. Isn't that swell? :|

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
agreed. letting something die (note the choice of words before flaming please) that is not aware that it exists really is not an ethical problem.

What makes you think that newborn babies are not aware they exist? At exactly what age does this supposed moment of understanding occur?

The abortion discussion has always centered around the moment life begins, and here you are stating that even newborn babies are fair game. Wow.

Neglecting to provide all available care to a newborn baby is murder.

You're one sick fucking SOB.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
the government and insurance companies can decide not to pay for it. If you want to raise a future ward of the state, you can pay for it yourself.

Another Death Panel supporter? Shocker.

That's mighty white of ya.

According to mikethefuckingidiot, only rich people can have premature babies. Isn't that swell? :|

i was mainly playing devils advocate in that particular instance, and don't fully agree with the position.

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
agreed. letting something die (note the choice of words before flaming please) that is not aware that it exists really is not an ethical problem.

What makes you think that newborn babies are not aware they exist? At exactly what age does this supposed moment of understanding occur?

The abortion discussion has always centered around the moment life begins, and here you are stating that even newborn babies are fair game. Wow.

Neglecting to provide all available care to a newborn baby is murder.

You're one sick fucking SOB.

nothing sick about it, noone is advocating euthanasia here or neglect, very different concepts that taking someone off life support, which is legal iirc.

I don't consider newborns to be fully human since i believe self awareness should be the defining aspect of morality in this case, and in fact i don't believe that the self awareness aspect should be limited to humans.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
nothing sick about it, noone is advocating euthanasia here or neglect, very different concepts that taking someone off life support, which is legal iirc.

Who gets to make that decision? If you say anything other than the baby or the family of the patient, you're sick.

I don't consider newborns to be fully human since i believe self awareness should be the defining aspect of morality in this case, and in fact i don't believe that the self awareness aspect should be limited to humans.

Holy...shit. :Q

At exactly what age does this supposed moment of clarity and understanding occur? At what point do babies become "human" to you?

 

[Patranus]

The question you should be asking is how many premature babies does the American health care system SAVE each year.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
I don't consider newborns to be fully human since i believe self awareness should be the defining aspect of morality in this case, and in fact i don't believe that the self awareness aspect should be limited to humans.

You might change your mind if you ever have a baby.

Some of the views expressed in this thread should frighten people.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

It's ironic that some of you are willing to take my money and spend it on the healthcare of 300+ million people who otherwise have the ability to take care of themselves and survive, but you're not willing to spend a fraction of that same money to do everything we can to help one million premature, helpless, newborn babies survive.

That's just fucking sick. :|

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
It's ironic that some of you are willing to take my money and spend it on the healthcare of 300+ million people who otherwise have the ability to take care of themselves and survive, but you're not willing to spend a fraction of that same money to do everything we can to help one million premature, helpless, newborn babies survive.

That's just fucking sick. :|

I'd be willing to settle for using your money to pay for the preemies instead of me subsidizing it w/ my health insurance payments. Deal?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
It's ironic that some of you are willing to take my money and spend it on the healthcare of 300+ million people who otherwise have the ability to take care of themselves and survive, but you're not willing to spend a fraction of that same money to do everything we can to help one million premature, helpless, newborn babies survive.

That's just fucking sick. :|

I'd be willing to settle for using your money to pay for the preemies instead of me subsidizing it w/ my health insurance payments. Deal?

Well...I'll give you one thing...you live up to your name. You're truly a barbarian.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: rudder
The sweet spot for our healthcare money should be on people 15-40 years old. It is between these ages that society has the most invested. Up until and after that point it is more cost effective to not throw too much money at keeping those age groups alive.

So, I should let me 8 year old son, who is currently sitting in Texas Children's Hospital, not receive healthcare because he's not worth enough to invest in? Are you that fucking stupid?

I love how you have become the arbiter of age investment.

My apologies for insinuating that rudder is stupid. My emotions got the best of me. that said, that model is insane.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
nothing sick about it, noone is advocating euthanasia here or neglect, very different concepts that taking someone off life support, which is legal iirc.

Who gets to make that decision? If you say anything other than the baby or the family of the patient, you're sick.

I don't consider newborns to be fully human since i believe self awareness should be the defining aspect of morality in this case, and in fact i don't believe that the self awareness aspect should be limited to humans.

Holy...shit. :Q

At exactly what age does this supposed moment of clarity and understanding occur? At what point do babies become "human" to you?

As is typical in most justice cases, the proof should be on the accuser, or in other words the standard would be that you should prove that they aren't self aware, which with current tech and understanding would be pretty much irrelevant, since i don't think it could technically be done. In reality its probably somewhere around 6-12 months, probably earlier. I would be fine with there being no legal recognition of the difference, however the ethical difference is very real; i'm not sure how you can rationally argue otherwise and so far noone has attempted, probably because you are mostly dismissing my argument on emotional grounds, and possibly rightfully so.

really all i'm advocating here is that people don't go through all the extraordinary means in all circumstances, especially in extreme cases, because i feel that may be doing net evil to the potential future individual.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
nothing sick about it, noone is advocating euthanasia here or neglect, very different concepts that taking someone off life support, which is legal iirc.

Who gets to make that decision? If you say anything other than the baby or the family of the patient, you're sick.

I don't consider newborns to be fully human since i believe self awareness should be the defining aspect of morality in this case, and in fact i don't believe that the self awareness aspect should be limited to humans.

Holy...shit. :Q

At exactly what age does this supposed moment of clarity and understanding occur? At what point do babies become "human" to you?

As is typical in most justice cases, the proof should be on the accuser, or in other words the standard would be that you should prove that they aren't self aware, which with current tech and understanding would be pretty much irrelevant, since i don't think it could technically be done. In reality its probably somewhere around 6-12 months, probably earlier.

I don't think you're self-aware...please provide proof otherwise.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: rudder
The sweet spot for our healthcare money should be on people 15-40 years old. It is between these ages that society has the most invested. Up until and after that point it is more cost effective to not throw too much money at keeping those age groups alive.

So, I should let me 8 year old son, who is currently sitting in Texas Children's Hospital, not receive healthcare because he's not worth enough to invest in? Are you that fucking stupid?

I love how you have become the arbiter of age investment.

My apologies for insinuating that rudder is stupid. My emotions got the best of me. that said, that model is insane.

and probably counter-productive.

there are strong arguments for limiting marginal, ineffective, and elective treatments (hip replacementss for 90 year olds, etc) but his argument is not realistic.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

As is typical in most justice cases, the proof should be on the accuser, or in other words the standard would be that you should prove that they aren't self aware, which with current tech and understanding would be pretty much irrelevant, since i don't think it could technically be done. In reality its probably somewhere around 6-12 months, probably earlier.

I don't think you're self-aware...please provide proof otherwise.

i'm posting on the internet and can tell you that i am. Also read what i wrote, especially the bolded.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Forget self aware. Concentrate on genetics and productivity. That's the way to less net evil.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Forget self aware. Concentrate on genetics and productivity. That's the way to less net evil.

lol

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
nothing sick about it, noone is advocating euthanasia here or neglect, very different concepts that taking someone off life support, which is legal iirc.

Who gets to make that decision? If you say anything other than the baby or the family of the patient, you're sick.

I don't consider newborns to be fully human since i believe self awareness should be the defining aspect of morality in this case, and in fact i don't believe that the self awareness aspect should be limited to humans.

Holy...shit. :Q

At exactly what age does this supposed moment of clarity and understanding occur? At what point do babies become "human" to you?

As is typical in most justice cases, the proof should be on the accuser, or in other words the standard would be that you should prove that they aren't self aware, which with current tech and understanding would be pretty much irrelevant, since i don't think it could technically be done. In reality its probably somewhere around 6-12 months, probably earlier. I would be fine with there being no legal recognition of the difference, however the ethical difference is very real; i'm not sure how you can rationally argue otherwise and so far noone has attempted, probably because you are mostly dismissing my argument on emotional grounds, and possibly rightfully so.

really all i'm advocating here is that people don't go through all the extraordinary means in all circumstances, especially in extreme cases, because i feel that may be doing net evil to the potential future individual.

Oh, I quite clearly understood you the first time. You are stating that babies are not "human" until they are "around 6-12 months" old, or "probably earlier." We get what you're saying, trust me.

For some, life begins at conception. Others contend that it starts once the braincells begin to multiply during the second trimester. Still others believe that it begins at the moment of birth. You, though, are the very first "person" I have ever seen/heard claim that babies don't become human until several months after they are born.

So, what I don't get, is just how someone could be so misguided and disgusting in their beliefs. You are absolutely fucking twisted.

You are the very first person I have ever quoted in my signature. Congratulations. :|

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
nothing sick about it, noone is advocating euthanasia here or neglect, very different concepts that taking someone off life support, which is legal iirc.

Who gets to make that decision? If you say anything other than the baby or the family of the patient, you're sick.

I don't consider newborns to be fully human since i believe self awareness should be the defining aspect of morality in this case, and in fact i don't believe that the self awareness aspect should be limited to humans.

Holy...shit. :Q

At exactly what age does this supposed moment of clarity and understanding occur? At what point do babies become "human" to you?

As is typical in most justice cases, the proof should be on the accuser, or in other words the standard would be that you should prove that they aren't self aware, which with current tech and understanding would be pretty much irrelevant, since i don't think it could technically be done. In reality its probably somewhere around 6-12 months, probably earlier. I would be fine with there being no legal recognition of the difference, however the ethical difference is very real; i'm not sure how you can rationally argue otherwise and so far noone has attempted, probably because you are mostly dismissing my argument on emotional grounds, and possibly rightfully so.

really all i'm advocating here is that people don't go through all the extraordinary means in all circumstances, especially in extreme cases, because i feel that may be doing net evil to the potential future individual.

Oh, I quite clearly understood you the first time. You are stating that babies are not "human" until they are "around 6-12 months" old, or "probably earlier." We get what you're saying, trust me.

For some, life begins at conception. Others contend that it starts once the braincells begin to multiply during the second trimester. Still others believe that it begins at the moment of birth. You, though, are the very first "person" I have ever seen/heard claim that babies don't become human until several months after they are born.

So, what I don't get, is just how someone could be so misguided and disgusting in their beliefs. You are absolutely fucking twisted.

You are the very first person I have ever quoted in my signature. Congratulations. :|

To be more semantically correct i should have used 'person' instead of human, since it is genetically and organically human at that point.

What about me is twisted? That i recognized that babies are not 'persons' in the full ethical definition?