First Prev
of 2
Next Last
The Doctor

Weston, WV

#1 Jan 11, 2013
I'm a doctor new to the area. For 2 weeks I will be giving free abortions in the old Video Zone building. Comment if interested.
Dreamer

United States

#2 Jan 11, 2013
You're sick!
kinly

Altavista, VA

#3 Jan 11, 2013
How about free adoptions! I would love to adopt two more kids. Guaranteed a great life, family and college education.
1 post removed
Boiling mad

Saint Albans, WV

#5 Jan 11, 2013
You call your self the "Doctor" you need to change it to the "Murderer" you are a sick f*cking bastard and I hope you burn in hell. You no good piece of sh*t!!!
1 post removed
Mad Mother

Weston, WV

#7 Jan 11, 2013
Seriously? You need to grow up!!!
1 post removed

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#9 Jan 11, 2013
Seriously, this country needs MORE abortions. America has the second highest infant mortality rate in the industrialized world due to our profit-based healthcare "system." This means five times more living children are dying than actual abortions taking place in the country. America also spends less on caring for unwanted children than any other industrialized nation. When you can't take care of the children you have, abortion is the moral thing to do.

TAKE BIRTH CONTROL...or

GET AN ABORTION.

It is ALWAYS the right thing to do.
kinly

Altavista, VA

#10 Jan 11, 2013
The right thing to do would be let someone adopt that has the ability and willingness to care for a child. There are about 1.5 million couples waiting to adopt. Abortion is selfish. Why kill a baby when so many people are willing to cover all the medical bills and provide that child with everything they could ever need or want?
Boiling mad

Saint Albans, WV

#11 Jan 11, 2013
Really??? The smart thing to do is keep your damn legs closed if you aren't going to take care of that innocent baby. But if you can't do that why not give the any to someone who wants kids but can't have then. That's the right thing to do
John the Great

Wheeling, WV

#12 Jan 11, 2013
This is a fake post. I am reporting it.
Mortality

Latrobe, PA

#13 Jan 12, 2013
Kinski,
Please tell me how "other" countries determine the difference between live born and still born infants. In WV medical providers are required to list an infant as live born at the age of viability if it has a heart rate (even if the parents make the choice of not doing anything due to the high mortality and morbidity rate of these infants). Please analyze why the WHO list the U.S. as having a high mortality rate than other countries. It has more to do with how we report infant mortality in this country than our health care system. Please look at the facts and not just repeat the bullshit that you hear.
Mortality

Latrobe, PA

#14 Jan 12, 2013
However, the method of calculating IMR often varies widely between countries, and is based on how they define a live birth and how many premature infants are born in the country. Infant mortality rates can be flawed depending on a nationsÂ’ live birth criterion, vital registration system, and reporting practices.[21] Certain practices of measurements have the potential to be underestimated. Measurements provide a statistical way of measuring the standard of living of residents living in each nation. Increases and decreases of the infant mortality rate reflect social and technical capacities of a nationsÂ’ population.[4] The World Health Organization (WHO) defines a live birth as any born human being who demonstrates independent signs of life, including breathing, voluntary muscle movement, or heartbeat. Many countries, however, including certain European states and Japan, only count as live births cases where an infant breathes at birth, which makes their reported IMR numbers somewhat lower and raises their rates of perinatal mortality.[22]

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#15 Jan 12, 2013
You're WAY out of your league "Mortality." First of all, it is obvious from your posts that you do not understand that infant mortality refers to any death occurring after live birth, up to age five. Regardless of how states such as WV report a VIABLE pregnancies (not actual births), the WHO as well as numerous university studies ONLY TOOK INTO ACCOUNT ACTUALLY LIVE BIRTHS UP TO AGE FIVE. As for your assertions that the findings of the World Health Organization are somehow skewed, the fact is that there have been numerous American-based studies that have made the same findings. If a child dies between birth and age five, there is not much room for error as these are reported in the exact same way as most industrialized nations.

The infant mortality rate has NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW INFANT MORTALITY IS REPORTED. The findings of these studies should be common sense considering that when you have a country with a patchwork profit-based healthcare "system" coupled with the fact that America is a low-wage nation, parents simply cannot afford the medical care necessary to raise healthy children. Especially if they live in states that do not provided health insurance for children (gotta love those state's rights).

The fact remains that profit-based healthcare is the SINGLE WORST POLICY ANY COUNTRY HAS EVER DEVISED. It is the cause for our low wages (businesses cannot afford raises when they are responsible for health insurance); it is responsible for our excessive bankruptcies (2 million Americans go bankrupt from medical bills per year -- an most of those have health insurance); it is (as Clinton has rightfully stated) a burden that cripples our economy; it is one of the main reasons for our lowered life expectancy (if you can't afford preventive care, you can't get cure a disease when it's treatable); and yes, it is the reason for our excessively high infant mortality rate.

Everyday, a new report backs up all of these claims, but if you want to live in a world where the WHO, American universities, and the media are in a conspiracy to make our healthcare policies look bad -- go ahead.

Regardless, I think the lesson we can all take away from this is that if you vote conservative -- your a child murder.

God bless.
Mortality

Latrobe, PA

#16 Jan 12, 2013
1. Infant mortality:When a child dies after birth. Child mortality is if a child dies before its fifth birthday. You better learn how to read wikipedia better. Who is out of there league.
Mortality

Latrobe, PA

#17 Jan 12, 2013
infant mortality rate (IMR) is the number of deaths of children less than one year of age per 1000 live births.

Many countries, however, including certain European states and Japan, only count as live births cases where an infant breathes at birth, which makes their reported IMR numbers somewhat lower and raises their rates of perinatal mortality.[22]

I never said anything negative about the WHO. It is up to the countries to decide how they define there live birth registry. They compile what they are given. They have no control over the data. So in fact the WHO data is skewed but they cant control it.

"The exclusion of any high-risk infants from the denominator or numerator in reported IMRs can be problematic for comparisons. Many countries, including the United States, Sweden and Germany, count an infant exhibiting any sign of life as alive"

Kinski you talk about university studies this and that. Have you ever critically read a university study. Probably not. You just vomit out what your liberal blogging buddies tell you. University this, University that. Your a joke.
1 post removed
kinly

Altavista, VA

#19 Jan 12, 2013
Well K Kinsk, Liberals like yourself are disgusting.... you twist everything to your liking. When you have so many people waiting years to adopt, why kill a baby and toss it in the trash. That's just as selfish as tossing food that's perfectly good away instead of letting the starving people have it. Its sad that anybody could ever see abortion as a good option. It just shows the moral direction our country is headed.
K_Kinski wrote:
You're WAY out of your league "Mortality." First of all, it is obvious from your posts that you do not understand that infant mortality refers to any death occurring after live birth, up to age five. Regardless of how states such as WV report a VIABLE pregnancies (not actual births), the WHO as well as numerous university studies ONLY TOOK INTO ACCOUNT ACTUALLY LIVE BIRTHS UP TO AGE FIVE. As for your assertions that the findings of the World Health Organization are somehow skewed, the fact is that there have been numerous American-based studies that have made the same findings. If a child dies between birth and age five, there is not much room for error as these are reported in the exact same way as most industrialized nations.
The infant mortality rate has NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW INFANT MORTALITY IS REPORTED. The findings of these studies should be common sense considering that when you have a country with a patchwork profit-based healthcare "system" coupled with the fact that America is a low-wage nation, parents simply cannot afford the medical care necessary to raise healthy children. Especially if they live in states that do not provided health insurance for children (gotta love those state's rights).
The fact remains that profit-based healthcare is the SINGLE WORST POLICY ANY COUNTRY HAS EVER DEVISED. It is the cause for our low wages (businesses cannot afford raises when they are responsible for health insurance); it is responsible for our excessive bankruptcies (2 million Americans go bankrupt from medical bills per year -- an most of those have health insurance); it is (as Clinton has rightfully stated) a burden that cripples our economy; it is one of the main reasons for our lowered life expectancy (if you can't afford preventive care, you can't get cure a disease when it's treatable); and yes, it is the reason for our excessively high infant mortality rate.
Everyday, a new report backs up all of these claims, but if you want to live in a world where the WHO, American universities, and the media are in a conspiracy to make our healthcare policies look bad -- go ahead.
Regardless, I think the lesson we can all take away from this is that if you vote conservative -- your a child murder.
God bless.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#20 Jan 12, 2013
You do realize that there are far more children who ARE NOT adopted and are now living in underfunded foster homes than those who are adopted by loving parents...right?

This isn't a fairy tale. Kids are genuinely suffering needlessly out there and it's not just the ones in foster care. Hell, the rate of children in poverty in this country is the highest it's been since the great depression.

But guess what? You can fix that and here's how.

1. Get behind a one-payer national healthcare system with no insurance middlemen. The reason America's wages have been stagnant for the last 20 years is because businesses cannot afford to give raises while paying for the increasing costs of insuring workers under an out-of-control profit-based system.

2. The tax rate for the wealthy during America's most sustained growth period (50's and 60's) was 90%. We had the revenue to invest in infrastructure, school, and research which in turn promoted a healthy economy. The tax rate for the wealthy is now 14%(but is actually lower, and for many even 0% if you have the right accountant).

3. Demand that our representatives cut our defense budget in half (we can do this and still be spending way more than any other country). The most waste there is in regards to government spending is in the military. Cut that money and put it towards foster care.

4. Pass a bill requiring ALL STATES to have state income tax so that the rates of sales taxes in such states do not adversely affect the poor and lower middle class. It would also keep red states from mooching the most federal money even though they pay the least in federal income taxes (blue states pay more).

5. An average of 600 American children die a year due to gun-related deaths (the rate in countries such as Britain that have banned guns is zero). Get behind gun control if you care about children.

In other words: Don't vote conservative.
Morality

Fairmont, WV

#21 Jan 12, 2013
Kinski,
Please just link to HuffPO or whatever. You are reading the talking points memo of these websites. You dont even know what they mean. You dont have one original thought in your head. You post studies that are the weakest form of research there is. You dont read the studies. You dont critically think about the "statistics" that you are placing on this website. You are just repeating what you have read from someone else. You use someone elses thought to pick on people on this site. It is sad really.
kinly

Altavista, VA

#22 Jan 12, 2013
You are a complete idiot!!!! How well has the war on drugs worked? You can get anything you want on any corner of the country. Guns will be the same. The law breakers will have them and crime will be way worse than it is now. I've helped several children. You don't want to even go there about the foster care scam. I know all about it. My family including myself have taken 11 children out of that system and provided them a great life. If you really want to do something to help kids adopt a few. Killing them so they never have a chance is the worst answer out there. Its even more stupid than banning guns so criminals can't get them.
kinly

Altavista, VA

#23 Jan 12, 2013
You proved to know nothing about foster care when you said "under funded foster homes" they are overly funded. Many people don't adopt because the money stops after they are adopted. Foster parents get $700-800 a month per kid. All medical, mileage etc paid. The state also gets $180,000 per kid per year. Many people are in it for the wrong reason. I know many, and guess what? They all vote LIBERAL.
Smh

Salem, WV

#24 Jan 13, 2013
kinly wrote:
The right thing to do would be let someone adopt that has the ability and willingness to care for a child. There are about 1.5 million couples waiting to adopt. Abortion is selfish. Why kill a baby when so many people are willing to cover all the medical bills and provide that child with everything they could ever need or want?
Why do you need to adopt a baby??? There are plenty of teenagers out there that needs a home!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weston Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Weston again considers loan to repay IRS (Jul '10) 2 hr Tugg Speedman 18
sharpe hospital corruption. (Dec '10) 5 hr Old Lonley man 38
Donna Kay Collins- (Blake) 5 hr Weston man 3
When should a child begin sleeping Alone? (Jan '13) Wed Mama bear 32
Tanfastic Tue Ms Fanny 2
Lena Lunsford needs to tell Dec 5 Sad for the innoc... 27
Johnna Dennison Friend Dec 4 Johnna Friend 2

Weston Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Weston Mortgages