Quote:
Originally Posted by aps  That's great. I don't understand why certain people are taking this study so personally that they feel they feel the need to disprove it. Some of the findings show that a premature baby is "more likely" to develop a disability. More likely usually equates to 51 or more percent. So then the chances of a premature baby not having or developing a disability would be 49% or less. So if we believe that the study shows 51% will develop a disability and 49% do not, why are people inferring that the study says essentially that almost all premature babies will develop a disability??? |
Its not the propensity for actual disability that is offensive, that makes sense. Its the idea that ones that don't develop a physical disability are more likely to be less educated and other nonsense that has nothing to do with premature birth. Its an excuse used for failure, and people are willing to buy into it. What if I said, people that are born black are more likely to commit crime? I could find statistics to back that up I am sure. But is it because they have some genetic predisposition towards crime, or is it a social issue that has to do with the cultural influences? I would say that out of these 10-20% of premies that do not achieve and end up on early social security, that cultural factors involving their parents may have an influence on that. I mean out of all the premies born, what percentage of them are born to people that aren't well off, or that are drug users/smokers? I would guess that it could be 10%. Sure premies are born to healthy families to, but lets not assume that just because somebody is born a premie, that they are more predestined for failure than others, so long as they developed no physical disability. To believe that is a disservice to them, just as it would be a disservice to assume black children are pre destined for crime because of the skin color they were born with. That is whats offensive.