Second ('Third') Trump Presidency Thread

sturg33 said:
Do you include abortions in this metric?
Click to expand...
Are you setting up an argument that the higher mortality rate is due to unwanted children being neglected or harmed by the parents forced to give birth or are you just inserting abortion into an unrelated topic just to remind us that you don’t like it?
 
mqt said:
Are you setting up an argument that the higher mortality rate is due to unwanted children being neglected or harmed by the parents forced to give birth or are you just inserting abortion into an unrelated topic just to remind us that you don’t like it?
Click to expand...
Its straight forward why one would think it’s relevant
 
mqt said:
Are you setting up an argument that the higher mortality rate is due to unwanted children being neglected or harmed by the parents forced to give birth or are you just inserting abortion into an unrelated topic just to remind us that you don’t like it?
Click to expand...
If we are concerned about the death of children as a metric of outcomes, i dont see why we wouldnt consider the death of children in the metric
 
The assertion that infant mortality rates are higher in red states because of lack of access to abortion as if blue states are doing the little buckeroos a favor
 
chop2chip said:
Its straight forward why one would think it’s relevant
Click to expand...
Unless it’s driving some unaccounted for advantage for blue states in keeping those children that aren’t aborted alive, it feels needless to the discussion of how blue states are doing at public health. If one state allows abortions but keeps your children alive and the other doesn’t but a bunch of kids are dying, there’s still a tangible difference for a parent of a child they’d like to keep from dying.
 
chop2chip said:
The assertion that infant mortality rates are higher in red states because of lack of access to abortion as if blue states are doing the little buckeroos a favor
Click to expand...

By framing abortions as dead children, it’s just doing an end-around on the actual debate on abortion, accepting the pro-life position and then using that as a basis for challenging completely different policy outcomes. I find it weak in the context of arguing against nsacpi’s point on Medicaid expansion.
 
mqt said:
Unless it’s driving some unaccounted for advantage for blue states in keeping those children that aren’t aborted alive, it feels needless to the discussion of how blue states are doing at public health. If one state allows abortions but keeps your children alive and the other doesn’t but a bunch of kids are dying, there’s still a tangible difference for a parent of a child they’d like to keep from dying.
Click to expand...
What is a 15% difference in infant mortality actually equate to in real numbers?
 
sturg33 said:
If we are concerned about the death of children as a metric of outcomes, i dont see why we wouldnt consider the death of children in the metric
Click to expand...
Because they’re two entirely different sets of public policy with no real bearing on each other. The claim is that states that expanded Medicaid have seen infant mortality drop by 15% compared to those who haven’t. Unless the assumption is that the metric itself is being skewed by babies who were aborted before they could die in infancy, you’ve shown me no valid argument against Medicaid expansion.
 
mqt said:
By framing abortions as dead children, it’s just doing an end-around on the actual debate on abortion, accepting the pro-life position and then using that as a basis for challenging completely different policy outcomes. I find it weak in the context of arguing against nsacpi’s point on Medicaid expansion.
Click to expand...
Nsacpi seems concerned about meeping children alive. Yet blue states have an abortion rate at more than double of red states. For some reason we shouldnt consider this in the outcome of keeping children alive
 
sturg33 said:
Nsacpi seems concerned about meeping children alive. Yet blue states have an abortion rate at more than double of red states. For some reason we shouldnt consider this in the outcome of keeping children alive
Click to expand...
Right. But that’s once again moving us from a debate about the efficacy of Medicaid expansion toward one of whether abortion is murder or not. You’ve made your position on this abundantly clear, but seem to be withholding your position on keeping infants alive.
 
mqt said:
Right. But that’s once again moving us from a debate about the efficacy of Medicaid expansion toward one of whether abortion is murder or not. You’ve made your position on this abundantly clear, but seem to be withholding your position on keeping infants alive.
Click to expand...
Im not withholding anything. Im considering the larger picture on which states are producing better outcomes for children being alive.

Im also not lazy enough to assume a specific policy is the reason for a certain outcome happening. Weve discussed before but cities in general simply have more access to healthcare due to proximity alone as well as higher income.

Lastly, a 15% reduction is less than one child per 1,000 births. It is not some massive amount of lifes being saved, but fractions.

So apologies for being annoyed when a leftist points to something like that as a very important and meaningful outcome while not being bothered at all at the million plus babies being slaughtered at the same time
 
nsacpi said:
Not every shares your views as to the beginning of life.

But that's not germane to my point. We should all be in favor of reducing child mortality instead of engaging in these semantic games.
Click to expand...
Its a scientific fact when the beginning of life is.

Not agreeing with it is just choosing to be ignorant
 
mqt said:
By framing abortions as dead children, it’s just doing an end-around on the actual debate on abortion, accepting the pro-life position and then using that as a basis for challenging completely different policy outcomes. I find it weak in the context of arguing against nsacpi’s point on Medicaid expansion.
Click to expand...
mqt said:
Right. But that’s once again moving us from a debate about the efficacy of Medicaid expansion toward one of whether abortion is murder or not. You’ve made your position on this abundantly clear, but seem to be withholding your position on keeping infants alive.
Click to expand...
It seems like we’re separating two related questions:
  1. policies that affect whether a pregnancy continues
  2. policies that affect outcomes after birth
If you only look at the second, you are missing a big part of the overall picture.

I’ll grant you the effect of abortion on infant mortality is zero if we hand wave and say the baby doesn’t die from abortion procedure even though the baby would be alive if we didn’t give the parents permission to terminate their life. I know this will be dismissed as semantics, but that cuts both ways. Perhaps the infant mortality should just be definitionally 0 since a fetus or a newborn can never be viable on its own
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top