Killing Your Kids

[Brad]

wabrams:

Brad,

Try this one first:

Hardness of Heart, Hardness of Life by Larry Milner. The author is/was an anthropologist. According to the research, infanticide has been in every culture for various reasons and at times the rates spike.

Any quotes with context or do I have to get the whole book?

 

[Brad]

Norwich:

Theres obviously a lot of sand in America with all the head burying going on.

You are well aware of what I meant, if you’ve never had to chose between abortion and what you may consider the alternatives (whatever they may be) you cannot empathise with their plight. Just be thankful you’ve never had to make their choices.

One alternative: give birth.

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

Sure. But, compare that with seeing how many Americans want Europeans not just to be grateful forever for our joining them in fighting Germany during WWII, but to owe us forever for it.

Owe us forever? What are we asking in return?

 

[Brad]

Lisa N:

Actually what would be interesting is to see if there is anything pre or post Roe v Wade that demonstrates any trend. So instead of 1976-2002 all post Roe years, how about the rate of infanticide 1953-1973? Anyone have that? It might be interesting to compare. While the charts are interesting they have no bearing in Brad’s premise that the abortion laws have created an overall devaluation of ‘useless’ life.

LIsa N

You are right. I just picked 1960 because it was prior to the contraception and free-sex mentality. Both time frames would be useful for sure.

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

Perhaps interesting, but the trouble is that statistics can be twisted to corroborate any number of premises.

Nobody is aking for twisitng. We are asking for truth. Twisting is what lie-seekers do.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Norwich:

Your right of course, Europes past was nothing to be proud of. Past acts have created great wrongs in the world, but, there is one difference. Most Europeans are willing to accept responsibility for those acts and have tried over recent years to put the problems behind them, they don’t (as a general rule) constantly try to justify themselves, they hold their hands up and admit wrong doing.

I pointed up other areas where the culture of murder and killing in America may come from, what happened? somebody actually crowed about “Liking my Gun” and then you wonder why people take life so easily? Tell me, where is the need for a gun in the Catholic Church? You rail against a single issue, abortion, but condone many other areas of killing, how can you justify that? You talk about how children must be protected, then have films and television showing death and destruction on a massive scale totally desensitising your kids, how can you justify that?

I make a quote from GB Shaw and am accused of anti Americanism but, you were blind to the fact that the comment was made by another, namely GB Shaw, was he anti American? and if so why? Could it be that many people are anti American, if so why? For those that don’t like to look at themselves they immediately go on the defensive, “I don’t listen to them their just anti American” some are more realistic and may start to question why so many people are criticising them, "maybe there is some truth to what is being said".

If this woman is shown in a court of law to be legally responsible for her childs death, then the punishment of the courts should be imposed but, it is for the courts to judge, not me, not you, not anyone. In the fullness of time she will also have to face Gods judgement and that is something none of us can speculate on.

As for abortion, some of the women take that route as an easy answer, others because they know no different and many in shear desperation. I do not and will not condone abortion, it is an anathema to God and man alike and yes, it is murder in the eyes of the Church but, what I will not do is prejudge womens reasons for seaking an abortion, they are too many and too varied. In their eyes it is not as simple as you like to make it and God forbid I should ever be in the position of some of these people in having to make that choice. Fortunately now I never will be but, I still have children and grandchildren and I fear for them as much as I fear for any woman or child placed in a position of having to make such an impossible choice.

If you’ve never been there I suggest you get on your knees and thank God instead of trying to be his judge and jury.The act of abortion is to be judged!!!A spiritual act of mercy is to admonish sinners.No circumstance makes the murder of the innocent justifiable.When you make excuses for abhorrent acts do not be surprised when it becomes more prevelant.The greatest evil in the world is not sin it is a denial of sin-Saint Padre Pio

 

[Norwich]

Brad:

Nobody is aking for twisitng. We are asking for truth. Twisting is what lie-seekers do.

Quote, "There are lies, there are damn lies and there are statistics"

M.J. Moroney Senior government statistician, Professor of Statistics at Cambridge University and lots and lots more. Taken from the preface to his book:

Goals, Floods and Horse Kicks. A definative reference book on the application of statistics.

So what is truth?

 

[Matt25]

"http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/index.html
IN THIS REPORT trends of mortality from homicide by age, sex, and color are presented for the years 1950-64 … Although infant homicides accounted for only 2,2 percent of the total homicides in 1964, the rate of 5.4 deaths per 100,000 infants under 1 year of age was the highest infanticide rate reported since 1945. The rate for nonwhite infanticide has doubled since 1957…

Infant homicide is a separate problem. Color and sex, play less of a role here than at any other age. The infant rate is higher than the level of homicide for persons 55 years and over. Since 1958, infanticide has risen by about 60 percent. Additional data for 1959-61 show little difference."

This report from the sixties looks at homicide amongst under ones. The more recent study quoted above ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/children.htm looked at children under 5 and so is not directly comparable. However this~
While the incidence of infanticide has increased,
the rates have remained fairly stable

     Infanticide rates for --

• black children have recently declined, reaching the lowest level recorded in 2002
• white children have remained stable
• children of other racial groups have remained stable
  

     **To          view data, click on the chart.**
  
    [ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/kidsrates.gif](http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/kidsratestab.htm)

Suggests that the overall rate across all sections of the population, if we assume that African Americans number no more than 15% of the population, is not significantly higher than it was in the 60’s. This
The younger the child, the greater the risk for infanticide

              Through the early 1990's, the number of infanticides of children age            1 and younger has increased while the number for older children has            remained relatively constant. The number of infanticides of children            younger than age 1 declined in the early 1990's and then stabilized.

                     **To          view data, click on the chart.**

    [ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/kidsage.gif](http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/kidsagetab.htm)

Indicates that under Ones constitute about 40% of the total number of infanticides.

In conclusion the thesis that the legalisation of abortion has read to an increase in infanticide is unproven.

 

[Brad]

Norwich:

Quote, "There are lies, there are damn lies and there are statistics"

M.J. Moroney Senior government statistician, Professor of Statistics at Cambridge University and lots and lots more. Taken from the preface to his book:

Goals, Floods and Horse Kicks. A definative reference book on the application of statistics.

So what is truth?

Are you favoring naturalism versus Divine Revelation?

Is the fact that Jesus is God provable by statistics or by a statistics professor?

 

[wabrams]

Brad:

Any quotes with context or do I have to get the whole book?

Get the whole book, you’ll enjoy it. I read it in college and unfortunately had to sell it at the end of the semester (being a poor student and all).

 

[Brad]

"http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/index.html
IN THIS REPORT trends of mortality from homicide by age, sex, and color are presented for the years 1950-64 … Although infant homicides accounted for only 2,2 percent of the total homicides in 1964, the rate of 5.4 deaths per 100,000 infants under 1 year of age was the highest infanticide rate reported since 1945. The rate for nonwhite infanticide has doubled since 1957…

Infant homicide is a separate problem. Color and sex, play less of a role here than at any other age. The infant rate is higher than the level of homicide for persons 55 years and over. Since 1958, infanticide has risen by about 60 percent. Additional data for 1959-61 show little difference."

This report from the sixties looks at homicide amongst under ones. The more recent study quoted above ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/children.htm looked at children under 5 and so is not directly comparable. However this~
While the incidence of infanticide has increased,
the rates have remained fairly stable

     Infanticide rates for --

• black children have recently declined, reaching the lowest level recorded in 2002
• white children have remained stable
• children of other racial groups have remained stable
  

     **To          view data, click on the chart.**
  
    [ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/kidsrates.gif](http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/kidsratestab.htm)

Suggests that the overall rate across all sections of the population, if we assume that African Americans number no more than 15% of the population, is not significantly higher than it was in the 60’s. This
The younger the child, the greater the risk for infanticide

              Through the early 1990's, the number of infanticides of children age            1 and younger has increased while the number for older children has            remained relatively constant. The number of infanticides of children            younger than age 1 declined in the early 1990's and then stabilized.

                     **To          view data, click on the chart.**

    [ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/kidsage.gif](http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/kidsagetab.htm)

Indicates that under Ones constitute about 40% of the total number of infanticides.

In conclusion the thesis that the legalisation of abortion has read to an increase in infanticide is unproven.

I’m not saying it is proven. It would, however, be good if we could approach the issue without modifying the original hypothesis and by providing appropriate statistics.

The hypothesis is that women (not men, just women) are killing their children (not just under 1 but under 18) at a higer rate since abortion has been legalized.

The charts (which are the more relevant of the statisitics but still lacking information) you showed are still post 1976 - they don’t show the infanticide rate prior to 1973, but, as I said, it’s much wider than just infanticide.

 

[Brad]

wabrams:

Get the whole book, you’ll enjoy it. I read it in college and unfortunately had to sell it at the end of the semester (being a poor student and all).

Ok. I’ll add it to the list. Thanks.

 

[wabrams]

Brad:

Ok. I’ll add it to the list. Thanks.

No problem my friend. I would have a list for you today of more books, but I didn’t leave the office until 10:30p last night. Had enough time to hit McDonald’s and watch the last of Battlestar Galactica.

 

[Brad]

wabrams:

Get the whole book, you’ll enjoy it. I read it in college and unfortunately had to sell it at the end of the semester (being a poor student and all).

At first glance, however, it looks like more of a premise of gender bias leading to infanticide rather than parents killing children of any age/gender.

 

[INRI]

Norwich:

Quote, "There are lies, there are damn lies and there are statistics"

M.J. Moroney Senior government statistician, Professor of Statistics at Cambridge University and lots and lots more. Taken from the preface to his book:

Goals, Floods and Horse Kicks. A definative reference book on the application of statistics.

So what is truth?

Actually, that quote is attributed to Mark Twain. It is not true that you can make statistics say whatever you want them to. It is true that you can make statistics seem to say whatever you want them to. A theoretical example, taken from medicine. Say you have a drug that claims to cut the relative incidence of stroke per year by half. Sounds great, right? 50% cut, right? The trick is that it is the *relative *incidence. If the incidence per year of stroke is 2%, then your drug has only cut the absolute incidence by 1%. See how that works? Going from 2% to 1% is a 50% decrease. This example is not that far off from real life. A lot of medications you see advertised (especially cancer therapies) only add a few percent to your survival or some other measure of health but cost a lot of money. Once you understand the terms *relative incidence *and absolute incidence, then you can look at these statistics more intelligently. There are other tricks in the presentation of data too, but the data won’t change. In Washington, where I live, a cut in the amount of increase a government program gets in money is simply called a “cut”.

Back to the topic. I think talking about the bloody past of our respective nations has added more heat than light to the discussion at hand, which was supposed to be about child abuse.

I have yet to see any statistics supporting or refuting the notion that America is abusing its children more post-1973 than pre-1973. As some other posters have pointed out, there is the real possibility that reporting has gone up while the incidence has remained stable. Once again, we have a dearth of data. Even if we had the data, and it showed an increase, it would purely be correlational; we would not be able to prove causation. There could be a lot of explanations for the increase aside from legalization of abortion. If anyone has more definitive statistics, I would be interested.

 

[wabrams]

Brad:

At first glance, however, it looks like more of a premise of gender bias leading to infanticide rather than parents killing children of any age/gender.

It’s all encompassing. Gender bias was some of the original ideas that lead to infantacide, but has grown from there.

 

[INRI]

Of course, the simplest answer is that since abortion constitutes the ultimate child abuse and also counts as infanticide, then of course it has increased in the US since 1973.

 

[Brad]

INRI:

I have yet to see any statistics supporting or refuting the notion that America is abusing its children more post-1973 than pre-1973. As some other posters have pointed out, there is the real possibility that reporting has gone up while the incidence has remained stable. Once again, we have a dearth of data. Even if we had the data, and it showed an increase, it would purely be correlational; we would not be able to prove causation. There could be a lot of explanations for the increase aside from legalization of abortion. If anyone has more definitive statistics, I would be interested.

It’s not so important to prove causation as much as it is important to know if a specific type of behavior is increasing. Once you do that, you can analyze the correlations and see what makes the most sense. Then you can do specific investigation to prove the hypothesis drawn from the correlations.

My concern is that much of this valuable research is not being done because of the secularist assumption that “choice” can only be a good thing.

 

[Brad]

INRI:

Of course, the simplest answer is that since abortion constitutes the ultimate child abuse and also counts as infanticide, then of course it has increased in the US since 1973.

Very true. But my hypothesis is that legalized killing of the unborn has possibly lead to increased killing of postborn children of all ages (say under 18) by mothers.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Norwich:

Quote, "There are lies, there are damn lies and there are statistics"

M.J. Moroney Senior government statistician, Professor of Statistics at Cambridge University and lots and lots more. Taken from the preface to his book:

Goals, Floods and Horse Kicks. A definative reference book on the application of statistics.

So what is truth?

Wow, you sound just like Pontius Pilate!