U.s. Has Second Worst Newborn Death Rate In Modern World Posted: 09-12-07 09:15am
U.S. has second worst newborn death rate
in modern world, report says
Research: 2 million babies die in first 24
hours each year worldwide
By Jeff Green
CNN
Wednesday, May 10, 2006; Posted: 12:02
p.m. EDT (16:02 GMT)
(CNN) -- An estimated 2 million babies die
within their first 24 hours each year
worldwide and the United States has the
second worst newborn mortality rate in the
developed world, according to a new
report.
American babies are three times more
likely to die in their first month as
children born in Japan, and newborn
mortality is 2.5 times higher in the
United States than in Finland, Iceland or
Norway, Save the Children researchers
found.
Only Latvia, with six deaths per 1,000
live births, has a higher death rate for
newborns than the United States, which is
tied near the bottom of industrialized
nations with Hungary, Malta, Poland and
Slovakia with five deaths per 1,000
births.
"The United States has more neonatologists
and neonatal intensive care beds per
person than Australia, Canada and the
United Kingdom, but its newborn rate is
higher than any of those countries," said
the annual State of the World's Mothers
report.
The report, which analyzed data from
governments, research institutions and
international agencies, found higher
newborn death rates among U.S. minorities
and disadvantaged groups. For
African-Americans, the mortality rate is
nearly double that of the United States as
a whole, with 9.3 deaths per 1,000
births.
Sub-Saharan Africa remains the worst place
in the world to be a mother or child, with
Scandinavian nations again taking the top
spots in the rankings by the
Connecticut-based humanitarian group.
Sweden heads the list, with Niger last.
(10 worst and best)
The "Mothers' Index" in the report ranks
125 nations according to 10 gauges of
well-being -- six for mothers and four for
children -- including objective measures
such as lifetime mortality risk for
mothers and infant mortality rate and
subjective measures such as the political
status of women.
Charles MacCormack, president and CEO of
Save the Children, said the report card
"illustrates the direct line between the
status of mothers and the status of their
children."
"In countries where mothers do well,
children do well," he said in a written
statement accompanying the report.
But each year, according to the report,
more than a half-million women die as a
result of pregnancy and childbirth
difficulties, 2 million babies die within
their first 24 hours, 2 million more die
within their first month and 3 million are
stillborn.
An unhealthy start
As Americans celebrate Mother's Day on
Sunday, "5,000 mothers will mourn the loss
of the newborn they bear that very day in
the developing world," said Anne Tinker,
director of Save the Children's Saving
Newborn Lives initiative.
"All children, no matter where they are
born, deserve a healthy start in life,"
Melinda Gates wrote in a foreword to the
report, which was funded in part by the
foundation she runs with her husband,
Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates.
MacCormack said "significant progress" had
been made in reducing deaths in children
under age 5 in recent years, but "we have
made little progress in reducing mortality
rates for babies during the first month of
life."
Causes of death in the developing world
were dramatically different from those in
the developed world, the report said. In
industrialized nations deaths were most
likely to result from babies being born
too small or too early, while in the
developing world about half of newborn
deaths were from infection, tetanus and
diarrhea.
The newborn mortality rate in the United
States has fallen in recent decades, the
report said, but continues to affect
minorities disproportionately.
Only 17 percent of all U.S. births were to
African-American families, but 33 percent
of all low-birthweight babies were
African-American, according to the
report.
The research also found that poorer
mothers with less education were at a
significantly higher risk of early
delivery. The study added that in general
lower educational attainment was
associated with higher newborn mortality.
Tinker said some nations ranked high in
part because they offer free health
services for pregnant women and babies,
while the United States suffers from
disparities in access to health care.
"We can do better here, but what's really
important is that we do something" in the
developing world, she said.
The report said almost all newborn and
maternal deaths take place in developing
nations -- 99 percent and 98 percent,
respectively. The newborn mortality rates
were particularly high in countries with a
recent history of armed conflict,
including Liberia and Sierra Leone.
But the report also concluded that
political will was more important than
national wealth. A "newborn scorecard"
ranking 78 developing nations found that
some relatively impoverished countries --
including Colombia, Mexico, Nicaragua and
Vietnam -- fare better than others.
Ranking at the bottom of the scorecard
were Liberia, Afghanistan, Angola and Iraq
-- countries where armed conflict and
cultural practices impede newborn
survival.
"It's tragic that millions of newborns die
every year, especially when these deaths
are so easily preventable," Gates wrote.
"Three out of four newborn deaths could be
avoided with simple, low-cost tools that
already exist, such as antibiotics for
pneumonia, sterile blades to cut umbilical
cords and knit caps to keep babies warm."
'The good news'
The Mothers' Index -- which excluded some
nations that lacked sufficient data --
highlights huge disparities between the
nations at the top and the bottom of the
list.
Compared with mothers in the top 10
countries, a mother in the bottom 10 was
found to be more than 750 times more
likely to die in pregnancy or childbirth.
In top-ranked Sweden, skilled personnel
are present at nearly all births, but in
bottom-ranked Niger, such help is
available for only 16 percent of women in
labor.
"The good news," said MacCormack, "is that
we know what it takes to help these moms
and children survive and thrive."
The report highlights the three areas it
says have the most influence on child
well-being: female education, presence of
a trained attendant at birth and use of
family planning services.
Educated women, the report said, are more
likely to marry and give birth later in
life, to seek health care and to encourage
education for their children, including
girls.
The report said that family planning and
increased contraception use leads to lower
maternal and infant death rates. Many
women and children in developing nations,
it said, die as a result of births that
come at the wrong time -- too close
together, too early or too late in the
mother's life.
so let me get this straight..
Pro-Fetal-Life groups are worried that 1.4
million more babies might not get born
each year but are ok with 2.0 million
dying in the first 24 hours, 2 million
more within 30 days, after their birth. 3
million more are stillborn.. 2+2+3 = 7
right? am I wrong here?? So that is 7
million gestations and babies dead each
year..
Is it just me or does it seem they are
looking the wrong direction in this
fanatical 'save the babies' quest they are
on?
|
Gu£st
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 20 Apr 2007 Posts: 767 Location: SUBMERGED IN TRUTH
Thanks: 5
Thanked:0
Posted: 09-12-07 15:33pm
"so let me get this straight..
Pro-Fetal-Life groups are worried that 1.4
million more babies might not get born
each year but are ok with 2.0 million
dying in the first 24 hours, 2 million
more within 30 days, after their birth. 3
million more are stillborn.. 2+2+3 = 7
right? am I wrong here?? So that is 7
million gestations and babies dead each
year..
Is it just me or does it seem they are
looking the wrong direction in this
fanatical 'save the babies' quest they are
on?"
I want to see those babies live of course
I do, and I support anyone who wants to
try to help fund medical advancement in
that area, but at least the doctors are
trying to save their lives. Pro life's
main concern is trying to prevent the
purposeful killing of unborn children.
|
msrosie
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 02 Jan 2005 Posts: 362 Location: Ontario, Canada
Thanks: 6
Thanked:1
Posted: 09-12-07 16:18pm
Jincks013
wrote:
so let me get this
straight.. Pro-Fetal-Life groups are
worried that 1.4 million more babies might
not get born each year but are ok with 2.0
million dying in the first 24 hours, 2
million more within 30 days, after their
birth. 3 million more are stillborn..
2+2+3 = 7 right? am I wrong here?? So that
is 7 million gestations and babies dead
each year..
Is it just me or does it seem they are
looking the wrong direction in this
fanatical 'save the babies' quest they are
on?
In all fairness to the prolifers, those
figures of 2+2+3 million are worldwide
while there are about 46 million abortions
worldwide each year (about 20 million of
those are illegal ones - so much for the
idea that making abortion illegal severely
curtails it).
Two things in the article really stand out
to me:
1. that the death rate of newborns is
lowest in countries with universal health
care
2. that making contraception more
available and educating women lowers the
infant death rate
Seems to me to be a no-brainer of what to
do about it.
|
Verizon-y
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 29 Aug 2007 Posts: 3291
Thanks: 2
Thanked:0
Posted: 09-12-07 16:58pm
ditto what msrosie said. It is a
no-brainer. Too bad pro-life groups stand
in the way.
|
Georgia59
Supporter
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 5557 Location: Along the Mississippi, USA
Thanks: 90
Thanked:32
Posted: 09-12-07 18:16pm
Honestly I think this has a lot more to do
with the general availability of
affordable, good health care.
Which would explain why less advantaged
peoples would have higher infant mortality
rates.
|
Jincks013
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Apr 2007 Posts: 1174 Location: ,
Thanks: 22
Thanked:9
Posted: 09-12-07 22:59pm
Gu£st
wrote:
"so let me get this
straight.. Pro-Fetal-Life groups are
worried that 1.4 million more babies might
not get born each year but are ok with 2.0
million dying in the first 24 hours, 2
million more within 30 days, after their
birth. 3 million more are stillborn..
2+2+3 = 7 right? am I wrong here?? So that
is 7 million gestations and babies dead
each year..
Is it just me or does it seem they are
looking the wrong direction in this
fanatical 'save the babies' quest they are
on?"
I want to see those babies live of course
I do, and I support anyone who wants to
try to help fund medical advancement in
that area, but at least the doctors are
trying to save their lives. Pro life's
main concern is trying to prevent the
purposeful killing of unborn
children.
Thats almost interesting..
Now how about the real post birth babies
dying? instead of hypothetical pregnancies
taht might not be gestated..
You avoided the quesion..
Aren't you, if you really actually care
about babies instead of just seeking a
last ditch effort at controlling women,
looking the wrong directiong?
My math could be flawed but I'd swear
there was 5.6 million more real babies
dying each year then pregnancies being
aborted..
YOu are not Pro-Life.. you are
Anti-Choice, Pro-Total-Woman-Control.
|
Cambion
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 Nov 2005 Posts: 747
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 09-13-07 02:01am
The higher infant mortality rate is
probably from stupid people who undergo
fertility treatments, conceive six or
seven babies at once and then refuse to
reduce. This results in babies being born
very small, usually premature, and with a
host of health problems. In fact, was
there not a recent news story about a
woman who birthed an IVF frankenlitter and
four of the six sextuplets died? There are
people who feel that life should trump
quality of life and will birth babies with
missing organs or life-threatening
illnesses (and then go on the news and beg
for donations because it's too haaaard to
pay for medical bills).
I think other countries have a better
grasp of the theory of survival of the
fittest. If a child is born very ill (as
in beyond healing), then it is allowed to
pass peacefully and with dignity - it
isn't kept alive by machines like a
science experiement because the parents
think their catholic god will save their
child.
|
Jincks013
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Apr 2007 Posts: 1174 Location: ,
Thanks: 22
Thanked:9
Posted: 09-13-07 06:11am
Cambion
wrote:
The higher infant mortality
rate is probably from stupid people who
undergo fertility treatments, conceive six
or seven babies at once and then refuse to
reduce. This results in babies being born
very small, usually premature, and with a
host of health problems. In fact, was
there not a recent news story about a
woman who birthed an IVF frankenlitter and
four of the six sextuplets died? There are
people who feel that life should trump
quality of life and will birth babies with
missing organs or life-threatening
illnesses (and then go on the news and beg
for donations because it's too haaaard to
pay for medical bills).
I think other countries have a better
grasp of the theory of survival of the
fittest. If a child is born very ill (as
in beyond healing), then it is allowed to
pass peacefully and with dignity - it
isn't kept alive by machines like a
science experiement because the parents
think their catholic god will save their
child.
Is this personal opinion or did you have
some facts to back up your assertion?
IVF might certainly contribute but I doubt
it is the main cause. Would you care to
post your research?
|
Georgia59
Supporter
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 5557 Location: Along the Mississippi, USA
Thanks: 90
Thanked:32
Posted: 09-13-07 12:03pm
Cambion
wrote:
The higher infant mortality
rate is probably from stupid people who
undergo fertility treatments, conceive six
or seven babies at once and then refuse to
reduce. This results in babies being born
very small, usually premature, and with a
host of health problems. In fact, was
there not a recent news story about a
woman who birthed an IVF frankenlitter and
four of the six sextuplets died? There are
people who feel that life should trump
quality of life and will birth babies with
missing organs or life-threatening
illnesses (and then go on the news and beg
for donations because it's too haaaard to
pay for medical bills).
I think other countries have a better
grasp of the theory of survival of the
fittest. If a child is born very ill (as
in beyond healing), then it is allowed to
pass peacefully and with dignity - it
isn't kept alive by machines like a
science experiement because the parents
think their catholic god will save their
child.
I totally don't buy that. People who have
the money and resources for IVF and
fertility treatments in general have the
money and resources to get the best
medical care to treat for their children.
Unless you have actual information, I
don't believe a word of this post.
|
sillyakchick
Supporter
Joined: 12 Apr 2007 Posts: 2701
Thanks: 6
Thanked:1
Posted: 09-13-07 12:25pm
There has been an abundance of research
that indicates that our soaring infant
mortality rate is due, in part to the
medicalizatioin of the birth process. too
many interventions are being introduced.
As indicated in the article from the OP,
the main cause of infant mortality in the
US is low birth weight and babies born too
soon. There are several contributing
factors to this, but two jump out at me
#1 Women are choosing elective C-section
based on erroneous dates provided by their
care provider. Due dates are only
estimates, and many times women opt for
this as early as possible to avoid stretch
marks, pain of vaginal birth, etc
#2 Physicians are inducing women too early
based on erroneus dates for their
convenience and for minor complications.
Much of this information has been
collected by my reading, specifically Ina
May gaskin and Pam Shubin, some of the
leading experts on childbirth.
|
Georgia59
Supporter
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 5557 Location: Along the Mississippi, USA
Thanks: 90
Thanked:32
Posted: 09-13-07 12:32pm
sillyakchick
wrote:
There has been an abundance
of research that indicates that our
soaring infant mortality rate is due, in
part to the medicalizatioin of the birth
process. too many interventions are being
introduced. As indicated in the article
from the OP, the main cause of infant
mortality in the US is low birth weight
and babies born too soon. There are
several contributing factors to this, but
two jump out at me
#1 Women are choosing elective C-section
based on erroneous dates provided by their
care provider. Due dates are only
estimates, and many times women opt for
this as early as possible to avoid stretch
marks, pain of vaginal birth, etc
#2 Physicians are inducing women too early
based on erroneus dates for their
convenience and for minor complications.
Much of this information has been
collected by my reading, specifically Ina
May gaskin and Pam Shubin, some of the
leading experts on
childbirth.
That's interesting....
while I still don't believe that that is
the reason that infant mortality rates are
so high in the US (given that the
mortality rate is highest among
disadvantaged groups) I can see how it
would contribute. I guess. (She says
reluctantly.)
I was actually thinking this morning of
starting a debate about elective
c-sections, that women choose out of
convenience or because they want to avoid
medical complications that arise later in
life because of vaginal childbirth. (Like
incontinence, for example)
|
sillyakchick
Supporter
Joined: 12 Apr 2007 Posts: 2701
Thanks: 6
Thanked:1
Posted: 09-13-07 15:02pm
Georgia59
wrote:
sillyakchick
wrote:
There has been an abundance
of research that indicates that our
soaring infant mortality rate is due, in
part to the medicalizatioin of the birth
process. too many interventions are being
introduced. As indicated in the article
from the OP, the main cause of infant
mortality in the US is low birth weight
and babies born too soon. There are
several contributing factors to this, but
two jump out at me
#1 Women are choosing elective C-section
based on erroneous dates provided by their
care provider. Due dates are only
estimates, and many times women opt for
this as early as possible to avoid stretch
marks, pain of vaginal birth, etc
#2 Physicians are inducing women too early
based on erroneus dates for their
convenience and for minor complications.
Much of this information has been
collected by my reading, specifically Ina
May gaskin and Pam Shubin, some of the
leading experts on
childbirth.
That's interesting....
while I still don't believe that that is
the reason that infant mortality rates are
so high in the US (given that the
mortality rate is highest among
disadvantaged groups) I can see how it
would contribute. I guess. (She says
reluctantly.)
I was actually thinking this morning of
starting a debate about elective
c-sections, that women choose out of
convenience or because they want to avoid
medical complications that arise later in
life because of vaginal childbirth. (Like
incontinence, for
example)
There are many reasons. I am saying that
this is a contributing factor and that it
is a large contributing factor. Education
and poverty are factors which have a
relationship with the infant mortality
rate. Some experts believe that this is
because these women have not either the
education which provides them with
informatioin in regard to maternal and
newborn interventions that have potential
harm for the fetus, nor the notion that
they can empower themselves and stand up
for what THEY think is the correct way to
proceed.
Poverty is also a driving factor. In the
city whrere I live you have two groups
that accept medicaid and the uninsured.
Both of these ofices are quite busy and
have a very heavy patient load. I have
heard from many patients and staff that
the physicians have to schedule inductions
based on staffing issues and physician
schedules due to them having so so many
patients.
This might help to support the findings.
It certainly can't be one reason, just a
multitude of factors interplaying with one
another.
Check out the statistics from "The Farm" a
nurse midwifery place started by Ina May
Gaskin in the 1970's in Tennesse. You
will be surprised at some of their
statistics there, and they see women of
all financial backgrounds.
I like your idea about the elective
c-section debate. that is a good topic.
|
Cambion
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 Nov 2005 Posts: 747
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 09-13-07 17:11pm
Quote:
tr>
Is this personal
opinion or did you have some facts to back
up your assertion?
IVF might certainly contribute but I doubt
it is the main cause. Would you care to
post your
research?
No, this isn't a personal opinion - it is
fact that IVF babies have a higher chance
of being born deformed or otherwise
unhealthy.
I totally don't
buy that. People who have the money and
resources for IVF and fertility treatments
in general have the money and resources to
get the best medical care to treat for
their children.
Unless you have actual information, I
don't believe a word of this
post.
Yes, but the thing is most people who
undergo ivf don't have the money to do so
- they rely on insurance to cover most or
all of it, or they take out ivf loans
(yes, these do exist). Hell, I even have
read about people who were selling their
house to rent a small apartment in order
to afford IVF, or taking out a second
mortgage on their homes to afford the
treatment. The funniest part is ivf is
only about 20 percent effective, so in
general this is a completely idiotic
investment (would you voluntarily buy
anything that had an 80 percent failure
rate??)
Loan sites, and other ivf financial aid
sites are listed there. I know ivf runs
upwards of $10k, but if they can't afford
that for conception, how in the world will
they be able to afford raising the child
(which is estimated to cost nearly
$300,000 to raise a child from birth to
the age of 18, discluding college costs)?
The fact that so many sites exist that
will shell out money for ivf is proof
enough that most people cannot afford to
have it done on their own incomes. And
then there is always the chance of
conceiving multiples, and most people will
not reduce if there's four or five fetuses
because 'it's god's will', and then
they'll start blogs asking for donations
because they can't afford to care for all
these babies.
For the hell of it, again, here's sources
that state there is an increased risk of
birth defects among ivf babies:
I know that third one says "The study does
not prove that the IVF itself is causing
the difference", but I don't think it's a
coincidence that so many ivf babies have
more health problems than babies conceived
naturally. There's too much evidence to
say otherwise.
Another potential rise in the infant
mortality rate here could be a result of
the 'free-birthing' trend of the past
couple years. For those who don't know,
free-birthing is a medically unassisted
birth. Basically, women will give birth in
their homes without a midwife or a doctor
of any kind present, and no medication.
The risk of death for the infant is much
higher than if the mother gave birth under
safer circumstances, as is the risk of
death on the mother's part.
|
sillyakchick
Supporter
Joined: 12 Apr 2007 Posts: 2701
Thanks: 6
Thanked:1
Posted: 09-13-07 17:22pm
Cambion
wrote:
[
Another potential rise in the infant
mortality rate here could be a result of
the 'free-birthing' trend of the past
couple years. For those who don't know,
free-birthing is a medically unassisted
birth. Basically, women will give birth in
their homes without a midwife or a doctor
of any kind present, and no medication.
The risk of death for the infant is much
higher than if the mother gave birth under
safer circumstances, as is the risk of
death on the mother's
part.
I am going to demand stats here because
again you are making wild assertions
without any evidence to back them up.
Since the mortality rate has lowered
slightly in the last few years, I highly
doubt that "the 'free-birthing' trend of
the past couple years" has anything to do
with it. Medication does not ensure a
"safe" birth. Either stick to what you
know about or do a little research before
you post hysterical propaganda from the
evening news.
|
HcoBrunette06
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 06 Dec 2005 Posts: 8005 Location: Missouri, United States
Thanks: 2
Thanked:1
Posted: 09-13-07 17:38pm
Cambion
wrote:
The higher infant mortality
rate is probably from stupid people who
undergo fertility treatments, conceive six
or seven babies at once and then refuse to
reduce. This results in babies being born
very small, usually premature, and with a
host of health problems. In fact, was
there not a recent news story about a
woman who birthed an IVF frankenlitter and
four of the six sextuplets died? There are
people who feel that life should trump
quality of life and will birth babies with
missing organs or life-threatening
illnesses (and then go on the news and beg
for donations because it's too haaaard to
pay for medical bills).
I think other countries have a better
grasp of the theory of survival of the
fittest. If a child is born very ill (as
in beyond healing), then it is allowed to
pass peacefully and with dignity - it
isn't kept alive by machines like a
science experiement because the parents
think their catholic god will save their
child.
"stupid people who undergo fertility
treatments"
what about people who can't conceive? What
do you expect them to do? oh just sit
around and accept that they can't have
children? It's a little harder than that,
but you wouldn't know.
|
Georgia59
Supporter
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 5557 Location: Along the Mississippi, USA
Thanks: 90
Thanked:32
Posted: 09-13-07 18:02pm
Cambion
wrote:
Yes, but the thing is most people who
undergo ivf don't have the money to do so
- they rely on insurance to cover most or
all of it, or they take out ivf loans
(yes, these do exist). Hell, I even have
read about people who were selling their
house to rent a small apartment in order
to afford IVF, or taking out a second
mortgage on their homes to afford the
treatment. The funniest part is ivf is
only about 20 percent effective, so in
general this is a completely idiotic
investment (would you voluntarily buy
anything that had an 80 percent failure
rate??)
But the point was that they have the
insurance that actually covers it (which
only expensive, good insurance does) or
that they have the credit and financial
backing to be able to take out a loan.
People who don't have insurance, or can't
get loans, these are the people who are
the most at risk for infant mortality
because they have to go to low-cost
low-income type health clinics and don't
get the best (or ongoing, or preventative)
medical care.
I'm not saying that IVF doesn't have
risks, I just don't buy that it's the SOLE
cause of infant mortality rates. I think
blaming IVF is ignoring the real problem.
|
Cambion
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 Nov 2005 Posts: 747
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 09-13-07 18:45pm
You really like getting on my case, don't
you? Maybe you should be taking care of
your precious widdle angel rather than
spending time on message boards, whining
at people you don't know.
Also, I never said assisted birth didn't
have its risks (way to put words in my
mouth) - but there is a much higher risk
of complications and death with unassisted
birth (I laugh knowing I actually need to
explain this). And since most news
articles base their information on
research, I would hardly call my cited
sources 'propaganda'. Aside from all that,
it's pretty much common sense that giving
birth with no one around to help you is
dangerous, for both the baby and the
mother.
Unfortunately, there are not too many
formal studies on the free-birthing
movement (probably because so few women
are that stupid). Then again, that's why I
said this was a 'potential' cause, not a
definite one. Maybe you could try - I
don't know - actually reading what gets
posted?
Anyway, of the few sources that didn't
glorify home-births as being wonderful,
natural, god's will and risk-free, this is
what was found:
Well, there are a couple of benefits to
unassisted births...fewer innocent doctors
getting sued when something goes wrong,
and mother nature will weed out the babies
too sick to live who would otherwise get
stuck in nicu and kept alive on machines.
Also, babies that die as the result of
unassisted births who later get taken to
the hospital will be recorded as hospital
deaths, so this will skew any statistics
out there on unassisted birth infant
mortality.
Another possible cause of an increased
infant death rate is low income - if
parents cannot afford to get the kid
medical care, the infant could contract a
deadly disease/infection and may perish if
it is left untreated.
And here's an article about it, for people
who want to whine "dat b3 pr0pagandaz
omfgzlolwtf!!11!":
Joined: 06 Dec 2005 Posts: 8005 Location: Missouri, United States
Thanks: 2
Thanked:1
Posted: 09-13-07 18:53pm
I don't have a child, but thanks anyway.
& thanks for blowing off my question
and answering it with a stupid comment
since you can't think of anything to say
to it.
get over yourself and stop trying to make
others feel bad for 1. having children, or
2. not being able to, and then calling
them stupid for doing whatever they can to
become parents. just because you don't
want children doesn't mean other people
don't.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 09-13-07 21:39pm
Basically, there are people on here who I
ignore. Guest is often one of them, with
Milletics up there and NightAngel only on
the occasion where she brags about being
homophobic. I also ignored
lobaha/pcforme until she left. I think I
will be adding Cambion to my list.