SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: epicure who wrote (178757)1/7/2012 1:07:30 PM
From: Steve Lokness  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 541556
 
<<This woman has an infant- if it was dying, or in a potentially life threatening situation, would that baby have to wait that long for medical assistance? Because if so, that baby would be a dead baby>>>

You're serious about this? She lived 25 miles from Oklahoma City! 25 miles! If you eliminate all women with three year old babies who live 25 miles or more away from a big city, I think you would find the number staggering.

This is a different subject than the gun issue that I took exception to, but I find this argument even more puzzling. What - we need be so coddled today that we must now live within close proximity to medical care? I would be willing to bet huge money that children brought up in rural settings do way better than children in inner cities much closer to medical care. And, I'm more than a little surprised by your argument as you can see.



To: epicure who wrote (178757)1/7/2012 1:18:39 PM
From: Cogito  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 541556
 
>>I think Cogito is suggesting that he'd like to see a man OR woman in that situation have better protection- and that a young mother with a small infant might be better off nearer to services.<<

Yes, that's what I was saying. But I think it's more important for a very young single woman with a young child to be in a less vulnerable situation than it would be for me, say.