[anasawad]

And btw, have you actually read the article you presented ?
There is something in it that can easily send your argument crumbling away. Lets see if you can find it or need help with it.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Did the parents push or force the kid to the tree

Doesn't matter, they are the legal guardian responsible for the welfare of the child are they not?

Answer the Question.

Yea, fuck that stupid article with it referencing all those multiple studies and sources to give facts.

Once again, it does not even come remotely close to dealing with the actual statistical data as a I provided, from a government agency for a nation that is hostile to midwifery, which nonetheless shows that the mortality rate for PLANNED midwifery was around half that of physician assisted hospital births.

[Victoribus Spolia]

There is something in it that can easily send your argument crumbling away. Lets see if you can find it or need help with it.

Which source are you referring to? I posted two, the government study and the NPR article.

[anasawad]

Your article is using a small sample size, based on old data, and limited to a specific area, as it states itself.

Now if you looked at national averages and statistics ( like the ones in that "stupid" article) and not collected by some random people but using data from both government and non government agencies, you get the real facts that out of hospital births have double the rate of child mortality and complications.


And for your strawman question.
Criminal negligence is when your decision causes harm. And if investigation showed that parents are neglicting their child which is causing the child to be harmed, then yes they are legally punished in most developed countries and the child is taken from them.

[Finfinder]

@Finfinder

Conservatives only tend to oppose things like this because they are "unusual" in the same manner that some conservative populations don't like "homeschooling."

However, that kind of conservatism is merely a rearguard action of defending the status quo.

In reality, from the principle of both "traditionalism" and "limited government" it makes very little sense for conservatives to oppose people choosing to have their kids at home.

Understood and completely agree and I do support birthing at home.. For what its worth feel you and Mrs are well informed and educated on this subject, as naturally many would be to make this big decision. No state or form of government should interfere in that.

I was thinking more on how this overlaps the abortion issue/discussion

@One Degree

Safety, health, security, etc.

You're seriously saying that you're welling to risk the health and safety of your wife and new born child to save money ?

Sure, the US health care is a bit too expensive so its an exception to the norm, but you borrow money, you manage it anyway you can and you pay it.
.

Couldn't you make a similar argument when someone decides to abort a child?

[anasawad]

@Finfinder
Ha ?
What does abortion has to do with this ?

[Finfinder]

@Finfinder
Ha ?
What does abortion has to do with this ?

In simple terms pro abortion people seem to not care about a child until its outside the womb so why do you in this case?

[anasawad]

@Finfinder
'm pro choice. If you want to have a child, you insure he\she are safe all the way whether in or outside the womb.
If you dont, abort and dont bring unnecissary suffering by bringing an unwanted uncared for child to this world.


The topic here however is irrelevant to this matter. We're not discussing abortion or pregnancy, we're discussing the safety of birthing and delivery methods.

[One Degree]

I think all of us men should be able to decide this rationally. Should we vote?

As far as pro choice people, shouldn’t each woman decide?

[Finfinder]

@Finfinder
'm pro choice. If you want to have a child, you insure he\she are safe all the way whether in or outside the womb.
If you dont, abort and dont bring unnecissary suffering by bringing an unwanted uncared for child to this world.


The topic here however is irrelevant to this matter. We're not discussing abortion or pregnancy, we're discussing the safety of birthing and delivery methods.

Sure it is we talking about a simple choice how are they not connect? For that matter science and medicine are improving all the time at what point (number of weeks) does that choice become the states as you seem to advocate? This why I say it is an interesting discussion.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Criminal negligence is when your decision causes harm. And if investigation showed that parents are neglicting their child which is causing the child to be harmed, then yes they are legally punished in most developed countries and the child is taken from them.

I asked a specific question, if you let your child climb a tree, and he falls and dies, should you be charged with criminal neglect. Yes or No?

Your article is using a small sample size, based on old data, and limited to a specific area, as it states itself.

What the fuck are you talking about? The study took a sample size from a developed region in Canada (not in the States).

The study likewise cross referenced, with source information, international studies and concluding the following (with qualifiers).

Planned home births attended by registered professional attendants have not been associated with an increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes in large studies in North America,1–3 the United Kingdom,4 Europe,5–8 Australia9 and New Zealand.10 However, these studies have been limited by the voluntary submission of data,1,4,5,8,10 nonrepresentative sampling,6,7 lack of appropriate comparison groups,1,7,9 inadequate statistical power3,8 and the inability to exclude unplanned home births from the study sample.2,11,12

Your articles took a single study from within the United States only, which already has sub-par natal care in general..

Other studies have pointed out that this is unique to the United States when compared to home-birthing in other nations, but this can be explained by several factors: (( https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... 180963108/ ))


1. The majority of U.S. homebirths are done in the amish community, which has high levels of birth-defects from imbreeding, which represented a large portion of the deaths and complications recorded in U.S. home-births (per your own statistics).

2. Hospitals and medical facilities refuse to cooperate with midwives, often leaving them without back-up supports, thus risking issues that could have bee avoided had cooperation begun in the first place.

3. Midwifery is still generally new in the U.S. as a growing practices and so it lacks the stability and uniformity of being an entrenched tradition as it does in Europe.

If there is a disparity between the BC sample in my study used and yours, that disparity would need to be explained before you could draw the sort of conclusions you have. You haven't even attempted such and likewise, even if we took your study at face value and ignored all other developed nations that show the opposite correlation, it would still show that midwifery was generally low-risk compared to most other decisions parents make regarding their childrens welfare.

However, this all being said, there have been other studies out now that contradict your study anyway.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... jmwh.12172

In essence, your argument is garbage.

_________________________________________________________________________________

@Finfinder

Got it. I think we are on the same page.

[anasawad]

@Finfinder
We did discuss this before here I believe.
I am of the opinion that the minute the fetus becomes fully developed and is capable of living once outside the womb, then it becomes a full person with protected rights and of the state responsibility to protect them and punish any violations.
So, 6-7 months into the pregnancy when I say the fetus becomes a person.

This however does not negate social responsibility of insuring best care for the fetus while in the womb if the decision is to have a child and not abort the pregnancy.
As pretty much anything you do then can hold long term effects on the baby ( both parents not just mother).

[Finfinder]

@Finfinder
We did discuss this before here I believe.
I am of the opinion that the minute the fetus becomes fully developed and is capable of living once outside the womb, then it becomes a full person with protected rights and of the state responsibility to protect them and punish any violations.
So, 6-7 months into the pregnancy when I say the fetus becomes a person.

This however does not negate social responsibility of insuring best care for the fetus while in the womb if the decision is to have a child and not abort the pregnancy.
As pretty much anything you do then can hold long term effects on the baby ( both parents not just mother).

I haven't discussed this I'm sure it has been ad nauseam. Again the argument is about choices starting at having sex and then ending in abortion or birth. As I said science and medicine are changing rapidly, who is to say at 2 months a child can develop fully outside the womb? That would make your opinion on social responsibility extremely subjective. The pictures I've seen they sure look like little human beings to me. It's all about the choices people make; we don't want to tell women what to do with their bodies until they decide to have a child, because that is when the state decides said child has rights? That is why I feel there is some built in hypocrisy in this discussion. Certainly we all have a common and convenient bias of our parents choosing not to abort us. Thank God.

[anasawad]

@Victoribus Spolia

I asked a specific question, if you let your child climb a tree, and he falls and dies, should you be charged with criminal neglect. Yes or No?

If you hold your child and put hem on a tree and he fell and died, its criminal negligence.
If he was playing around outside, climbed a tree, fell and died. No, but it is negligence and could cause the state to question your responsibility towards any other children you have.
If you neglect your child in general and don't watch over hem\her and that caused them to get harmed, then it is negligence and your children will be taken away from you.

Second time I answered your dumb strawman question.

What the fuck are you talking about? The study took a sample size from a developed region in Canada (not in the States).

The study likewise cross referenced, with source information, international studies and concluding the following (with qualifiers).

A national average is a better indicator and a refered stat than that of a specific region.

And the part you quoted tells you why you shouldn't base anything on it.

Your articles took a single study from within the United States only, which already has sub-par natal care in general..

Well, the US is a good reference point because 1- you live there, and 2- its has the most money.
But sure, we'll take the world wide stats, though that really wont do much in your favor.

And its referencing stats in half a dozen places.

If there is a disparity between the BC sample in my study used and yours, that disparity would need to be explained before you could draw the sort of conclusions you have. You haven't even attempted such and likewise, even if we took your study at face value and ignored all other developed nations that show the opposite correlation, it would still show that midwifery was generally low-risk compared to most other decisions parents make regarding their childrens welfare.

However, this all being said, there have been other studies out now that contradict your study anyway.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... jmwh.12172

In essence, your argument is garbage.

1- citing a source that has an intrinsic interest in seeing home births continue is biased due to the fact its dependent on it continuing.

2- Home birth was shown to have higher mortality rates in almost every single country.
Even the Netherlands which has the highest rate of out-of-hospital birth also unsurprisingly have a higher child mortality rate than countries of its same league and state.
And countries with higher rate of out-of-hospital births are also, unsurprisingly, countries with significantly higher child mortality. The trend is across the globe BTW not just the US.

You can keep talking all day long, it wont change the fact the out-of-hospital births have higher child mortality rates, the fact that an increase in out-of-hospital births is a good indicator of an increase in child mortality and birth defects across the board, and that all the studies that attempt to disprove that all seem to somehow consistently have very small sample sizes, be unspecific, and focus on very limited examples.

[anasawad]

@Finfinder
If a women goes into labor on the 7th month, the baby can live. If she went on labor in the second month, thats a miscarriage.
After a certain point in pregnancy the fetus would be technically alive. And at that point, yes, it should be protected.
If you don't want the baby, you should've gotten an abortion in the many months prior when the chance was available, or give the baby to adoption once its born.

And how is it exactly hypocrisy ? Women should have control of their bodies, sure, but at the late stages of a pregnancy, thats not their body, its their baby's body.

[Victoribus Spolia]

If he was playing around outside, climbed a tree, fell and died. No, but it is negligence and could cause the state to question your responsibility towards any other children you have.
If you neglect your child in general and don't watch over hem\her and that caused them to get harmed, then it is negligence and your children will be taken away from you.

So basically, still a slippery slope, and the issue here is that the statistics show that any such activities are dangerous, hence, EVER allowing your kids to play (like normal kids I might add) is by nature of the definition, putting your kids at risk.

Your logic is not merely against midwifery, but against parenting in general.

If we were examine risk assessment and parenting, you've basically just created a criteria that would demand we abolish all parenting rights in exchange for state-run day-cares that stifle all risk and meaningful expression.

A national average is a better indicator and a refered stat than that of a specific region.

And the part you quoted tells you why you shouldn't base anything on it.

Not necessarily, because national stats are often too broad and cannot account for important factors that maybe be variable depending on region, income, culture, race, et al.

Selective sample sizes are often preferable for doing research into medical procedure; hence why a reputable government agency did such.

Well, the US is a good reference point because 1- you live there, and 2- its has the most money.

1- I have nothing to do with the OP, its a general statement. 2- what has that to do with anything?

Even the Netherlands which has the highest rate of out-of-hospital birth also unsurprisingly have a higher child mortality rate than countries of its same league and state.

Evidence?

citing a source that has an intrinsic interest in seeing home births continue is biased due to the fact its dependent on it continuing.

YOUR FALLACY IS:



Appeal to Motive (appeal to bias) is a fallacy, a type of dismissive ad-hominem. Under this same argument I could dismiss all mainstream medical studies involving regular OBGYN physicians because they have a vested economic interest in the failure of the midwifery movement. It cuts both ways.

FAKE NEWS!!!

Besides, the sample size and data collection pool speaks for itself, its legit.

And countries with higher rate of out-of-hospital births are also, unsurprisingly, countries with significantly higher child mortality. The trend is across the globe BTW not just the US.

Well, as a global trend there is no doubt, because a bunch of HIV infected 14 year old savages in the bush of the Congo birthing inbred babies in Goat stalls under the supervision of witch docters would have ZERO impact on the stats, ama right?

You can keep talking all day long, it wont change the fact the out-of-hospital births have higher child mortality rates

This has been disproven. Several times and by several studies.

[XogGyux]

Bullshit.

Complications during birthing are almost never an extreme emergency. Moving to a hospital from home during some issue usually doesn't result in any negative affects to mother or baby.

Really? Where did you get your MD, where did you go to get your OBGyn residency?
Also, i like how you use "usually". I wonder if you would be so liberal about a procedure that "usually" does not cause impotence. Would you join my clinical study regarding weekly examination of the bladder with a cystoscope? It "usually" does not give you impotence. It "usually" does not give you an UTI, it "usually" does not kill people.
I feel very strongly about people that have a strong position about issues for which they do not have to suffer the bulk of the consequences (for instance, mostly males making decision regarding reproductive freedom/rights of the mother.) I did say earlier that I don't feel strongly against this because 1: THE MOTHER, more than anyone one else, must be FULLY AWARE of the risks, benefits and ALTERNATIVES, 2:On careful selected patients the risk is relatively low, 3: If we had a more robust system, like for instance the UK, data does suggest that we should not expect any major difference in outcomes (assuming that UK population is representative of the US, this is a relatively decent assumption but has to be taken with a grain of salt, for instance if in the UK the rate of gestational diabetes is significantly lower than the US< and, we know GD can lead to macrosomia [LARGE BABIES] this could make their data non-applicable to our population.
Unfortunately, the article that I have in mind was in one of the 2014-2016 editions and I lost it when I moved. I'd have to check online to see if I find the same article again. But still we do have additional evidence that suggest, that at least in the US, Planned-out-of-hospital birth carry a small, but significantly increased risks of adverse events.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1501738

[quote = "Victoribus Spolia "] Likewise, the question of parental rights also needs to be addressed. [/quote]
This is an important and interesting question indeed. Especially, because I do think the woman should keep the ultimate final say on this. However, it is a decision that it is best done as a shared decision making. This includes the mother, the father and the doctor/midwife. A potential father should probably have this decision before even planning a baby if the values of the mother points towards a unconvertional decision (e.g. out of hospital birth in a country where it is not traditionally done) as so the potential father can also have a say, or even completely decline participating in the conception of this baby if he does not agree (i think this would never happen by the way, but this discussion could lead to identifying ideological differences that would make a long-time relationship ill-advised). As a man and potential father I must admit I would feel betrayed and powerless of my wife were to take the decision to have a baby at home rather than go to the hospital without my support. For one, I would also have to suffer some of the consequences would this go wrong. Thus, having the discussion is certainly the way to go.
This is, however something that could not be enforced in any way shape or form. You cannot simply stop a woman from having a baby if she happens to go into labor at the wrong time or in the wrong place. There have been reports of women given birth in the toilet or even in their sleep....

Actually if this is your point. The abortion debate is completely different. Abortion is about women's right not about babie's. From a purely logical perspective, she has a parasite in her body (fetus) and she does not want to have the parasite (which eventually becomes a child) and thus she wants it out. The parasite, if it could live without the mother, could and should be allowed to live. This is why abortion, even for those in favor of it, does usually come with an arbitrary time period at which it can be done legally (as to release us from the moral guilt from potentially "killing" a baby the closer to delivery it is). Early on (first few weeks) we are talking about a clump of cells not much different from a banana, the dilemma really comes into consideration when the fetus approaches an age that it would be viable with assistance (e.g. NICU care, medicines, surgery, etc) which now its just over 20weeks but realistically 23-25w++.
An even more interesting conversation. What would be your position if the woman that is pregnant, 1 week into her pregnancy decides she does not want to have a baby. Lets assume in this case that we had the technology to safely remove the embryo and put it in an artificial woumb for growth. In this theoretical case, the woman could either:
1. have the pregnancy
2. have an abortion
3. safely remove the embryo and artificially grow it
Now, lets assume that safely removing embryo is, in this case, not anymore expensive, dangerous, time-consuming, painful or even has sequelae for the future. For the sake of this conversation, let's assume that it is, from the point of view of the woman, exactly the same.
In this case, would you be in favor of outlawing abortion, knowing that you, as a taxpayer would be responsible for every child produced in this way for welfare, healthcare, education?

I asked a specific question, if you let your child climb a tree, and he falls and dies, should you be charged with criminal neglect. Yes or No?

Actually this depends on the context, and the answer might, actually be yes in some cases. If you let your child 6 year old play with his bike in the highway or even a busy street you are almost ganrateed to be charged. If you let your child go climb a very large tree, you might in fact also be responsible or even charged if you knew/saw it. Parents get charged on accidental deaths all the time. The context matter.

[Finfinder]

@Finfinder
If a women goes into labor on the 7th month, the baby can live. If she went on labor in the second month, thats a miscarriage.
After a certain point in pregnancy the fetus would be technically alive. And at that point, yes, it should be protected.

Do you not think that technology someday will allow a child to live at 2 months ?

@Finfinder

If you don't want the baby, you should've gotten an abortion in the many months prior when the chance was available, or give the baby to adoption once its born.

And how is it exactly hypocrisy ? Women should have control of their bodies, sure, but at the late stages of a pregnancy, thats not their body, its their baby's body.

You claimed that people were making a bad decision to home birth because of convenience and money. So why do women abort then and why is that more socially responsible than choosing a home birth?

[Rancid]

Really? Where did you get your MD, where did you go to get your OBGyn residency?

At a university.

[Pants-of-dog]

As far as I can tell, those states where home birth is illegal is due to pressure from insurance companies who cannot insre home deliveries.

Thanks, capitalism.