Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 36 of 36

Thread: US low score on world motherhood rankings: charity

  1. #31
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: US low score on world motherhood rankings: charity

    yep.....too true.

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    11-23-11 @ 10:06 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,827

    Re: US low score on world motherhood rankings: charity

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    I actually disagree with that greatly(agree with the not pushing academics part), I've seen some other studies that say a child should not enter formal schooling until the age 9-11 to better develop the parent/child bond and to allow the child's brain to stabilize, so that it can accept the schooling environment/structure more readily.
    I think the Waldorf method reflects that philosophy. Yes, it's better for kids to delay learning to read until 9, and there is research to support that in the long run that is more beneficial.

    My point is that pre-school shouldn't teach academics, shouldn't teach letters, but should allow children to explore their environment and develop their minds and bodies without encouraging early reading.

    The schools have it backwards these days and are severely off course by pushing kindergartners into academics. I always fought it, and by 4 grade my kids were reading on the 12th grade level and reading for pleasure.

  3. #33
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: US low score on world motherhood rankings: charity

    Quote Originally Posted by MyOwnDrum View Post
    I think the Waldorf method reflects that philosophy. Yes, it's better for kids to delay learning to read until 9, and there is research to support that in the long run that is more beneficial.

    My point is that pre-school shouldn't teach academics, shouldn't teach letters, but should allow children to explore their environment and develop their minds and bodies without encouraging early reading.

    The schools have it backwards these days and are severely off course by pushing kindergartners into academics. I always fought it, and by 4 grade my kids were reading on the 12th grade level and reading for pleasure.
    I've never been a fan of early childhood education, if you go to college now it's a pretty huge major and the states/feds are pushing the programs hard.

    To me, it seems like a state/fed subsidized day care program.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  4. #34
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,174

    Re: US low score on world motherhood rankings: charity

    And it is a load of excuses by the US.

    First off the chance of a child surviving under 22 weeks is under 1%, so any impact on the statistics is minimal at best. Does it happen? Yes, but there is a 99% chance of said child not making it. Children born after 23 weeks of gestation have a 50% of survival and those born 23+ weeks have a far far higher chance of survival.

    Secondly there are a huge set of western European countries that have the same standards as the US, and ALL are above the US in the list I believe.

    Thirdly of those countries not with the same rules.. lets look at some of them..

    Norway.. 12 weeks.. NO child has ever ever ever survived under 21 weeks of gestation, so this in all practice is the same rule as the US and the rest of Europe.

    Netherlands and France. 22 weeks or 500 grams.. only one reported child in human history has survived under 22 weeks of gestation... one child. Children under 23 weeks can pretty much be counted in under 100 I believe.

    Face it the differences are at best minimal if there are any real differences in reporting between the US and all major industrialized countries.

    And if you seriously think that Europeans dont do everything to save a child born too early, then I must say... the arrogance and ignorance is appalling.
    Last edited by PeteEU; 05-06-10 at 03:27 PM.
    PeteEU

  5. #35
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    01-05-18 @ 10:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,296

    Re: US low score on world motherhood rankings: charity

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    What does that have to do with motherhood?
    Why would it be considered wrong for a mother to spend more time with her child?

    Seems to me, that someone came up with a subjective measure of good.
    yup. i work with two other folks who have kids that are about two and a half (my son's age). They are both in daycare. one of them can count to three and one of them isn't talking sentences. my kid knows all abc's, can count to 20, and has been speaking full sentences for months now; because he has someone who pays personal attention to teaching him throughout the day.

    as for the child mortality, we've been over and over why that's a messed up metric.

  6. #36
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    Re: US low score on world motherhood rankings: charity

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    And if you seriously think that Europeans dont do everything to save a child born too early, then I must say... the arrogance and ignorance is appalling.
    I wasn't implying that at all. I was providing some information regarding the differences in methods used for calculation and that the US has a higher rate of prematurity. A higher rate of prematurity, in a country that counts all live births, is going to have higher mortality rates.
    Where did you get the idea that I was insulting Europeans? Seriously.

    High rates of premature birth are the main reason the United States has higher infant mortality than do many other rich countries, government researchers reported Tuesday in their first detailed analysis of a longstanding problem.
    In Sweden, for instance, 6.3 percent of births were premature, compared with 12.4 percent in the United States in 2005, the latest year for which international rankings are available. Infant mortality also differed markedly: for every 1,000 births in the United States, 6.9 infants died before they turned 1, compared with 2.4 in Sweden. Twenty-nine other countries also had lower rates.
    If the United States could match Sweden’s prematurity rate, the new report said, “nearly 8,000 infant deaths would be averted each year, and the U.S. infant mortality rate would be one-third lower.”
    The first author of the report, Marian F. MacDorman, a statistician at the National Center for Health Statistics, said in an interview that the strong role prematurity played came as a surprise to her.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/health/04infant.html
    Last edited by lizzie; 05-07-10 at 12:06 AM.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •