|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jun 30, 2009 19:12:29 GMT -5
Marcie, I hav to confess, I had really bad PMS when I wrote that. I'm SO sorry! You guys need to put me on temporary ban for that time of the month.
|
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Jun 30, 2009 20:08:20 GMT -5
I understand, sometimes i get real mad when reading some of the things said on the board and leash out. Apology accepted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jul 1, 2009 9:10:58 GMT -5
I'm assuming you're talking about African Americans? Do you know that African Americans were "interbred" for 400 years under slavery? That's why they have various defects. They were too "inbred" (mothers/sons, fathers/daughters, 1st cousins, uncles/nieces, etc...). The slave owners bred them like horses to get the best "stock" out of the bunch making them physically stronger (some racists believe that this is why African Americans are superior to European Americans in sports). So, this just proves my point about inbreeding. When you interbreed too much, you end up getting an inferior product. Ask any dog breeder. That's why people in Appalachia are living like 3rd world people. Their inbreds. Their notorious for having incestual affairs with their own "kin". But when you mix races, the defects are "weeded" out because the person of the opposite can't carry the defective gene. Haven't you noticed that the most progressive societies are those that are mixed race/mixed cultures? (Take America for example) |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jul 1, 2009 9:11:56 GMT -5
So I guess it makes sense that bi-racial White-Black babies would have the highest risk of birth defects...since Black and White are the 2 highest. No, it's the complete opposite. Birth defects that are particular to 1 race have only a 50% chance of being passed on (if any) to a child of a different racial problem. |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Jul 1, 2009 9:13:13 GMT -5
Steven....okay, but the facts are still the same, regardless. Marcie said we should find stats, she never asked me to explain them.
Whites aren't very far behind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jul 1, 2009 9:13:28 GMT -5
WHat? Are you people serious? That is like Genetics 101 I'm sorry. If you don't know what you are talking about, maybe it's best to keep to another subject. Cepha is right. Why are you all just digging for reasons to say that interracial marriage is wrong? At least learn a little about genetics and birth defects before you start using it as a platform for your prejudice. Excuse me... we are talking about black/white babies not MARRIAGE! And I'm not digging for anything! I was/am under the impression that bi-racial babies have better chances of having birth defects, THAT ALL! Thanks!  You're under the wrong impression. There's "less" chance of birth defects for biracial children. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jul 1, 2009 9:13:51 GMT -5
Just some info i found.. In the United States, prematurity/low birthweight is the second leading cause of all infant deaths (during the first year of life) and the leading cause of infant death among black infants. During 2004-2006 (average) in the United States, late preterm birth rates were highest for Black infants (11.7%), followed by Native Americans (10.1%), Hispanics (8.8%), Whites (8.6%) and Asians (7.9%). • Late preterm babies have higher rates of adverse birth outcomes than term infants. Late preterm babies are at higher risk for breathing problems, feeding difficulties, jaundice, difficulties regulating body temperature and death compared to term babies. • During 2004-2006 (average), the very preterm birth rate in the United States was highest for black infants (4.1%), followed by Native Americans (2.1%), Hispanics (1.8%), whites (1.6%) and Asians (1.5%). • Black infants (4.1%) were about 3 times as likely as Asian infants (1.5%) to be born very preterm during 2004-2006 (average). • Very premature babies who survive may suffer lifelong consequences, including cerebral palsy, blindness and other chronic conditions. • During 2003-2005 (average), the infant mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) in the United States was highest for black infants (13.6), followed by Native Americans (8.5), whites (5.7), Hispanics (5.6) and Asians (4.7). • Black infants (13.6) were about 3 times as likely as Asian infants (4.7) to die during the first year of life during 2003-2005 (average). www.marchofdimes.com/peristats/tlanding.aspx?dv=lt®=99&top=6&lev=0&slev=1But you haven't posted one statistic on biracial children? Aren't "they" the topic here?  |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Jul 1, 2009 9:14:21 GMT -5
I couldn't find any stats on biracial babies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jul 1, 2009 9:16:27 GMT -5
I wasn't going to say this because I'll be called a racist but the main reason minority babies have more birth defects and a higher mortality rate is because there are more minority women who use ilegal drugs. There! I said it. You're right Alfie, but it's because they were "interbred" too much when they were slaves by their slavemasters. This is why African Americans have very specific defects that Africans in other nations don't suffer from. Slave owners destroyed The African American Gene Pool with their forced breeding of them. Another "atrocity" in America.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jul 1, 2009 9:20:02 GMT -5
Maybe Nixon was aware that biracial chidren faced obstacles in this society that white and black children did not. It used to be that both black and white people rejected biracial children because they weren't considered pure. Today that isn't so much of a problem. If that's true, why didn't he advocate aborting deformed childrren of pure races? Or handicapped children? Pure Blacks were far more rejected that mixed children. The offspring of White Slave Owners and Black Slave Women were kept "in" the house as the servants because of their appearance. If anything, mixed children are far more accepted by American Society than pure Blacks. Take our President for example...I guess it's another instance where a Democrat (President Obama) proves a Racist Republican (Former President and Convicted Felon Richard Nixon) wrong. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jul 1, 2009 9:21:50 GMT -5
Heather, I am not against inter-racial marriage or the making of inter-racial babies. I just posted the website because I was curious and Marcie said we should find some stats on the subject. Alfie, Sometimes it's due to use of drugs period...not just illegal ones. But that can and is across the board with all races. Social-economic status has more to do with birth defects. True...all that in "inbreeding" in a genetic pool. Poor whites in Europe (Ireland, France, Germany, England, South Africa, etc...) have their own ghettos and suffer from similar "obstacles". Think about it...worldwide, those of "European" descent are the minorities. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jul 1, 2009 9:22:23 GMT -5
I understand, sometimes i get real mad when reading some of the things said on the board and leash out. Apology accepted. For you and Teresa, I can't use PMS as an excuse to get onry! LOL! I'm organically mean and nasty! LOL! |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Jul 1, 2009 9:51:51 GMT -5
Just some info i found.. In the United States, prematurity/low birthweight is the second leading cause of all infant deaths (during the first year of life) and the leading cause of infant death among black infants. During 2004-2006 (average) in the United States, late preterm birth rates were highest for Black infants (11.7%), followed by Native Americans (10.1%), Hispanics (8.8%), Whites (8.6%) and Asians (7.9%). • Late preterm babies have higher rates of adverse birth outcomes than term infants. Late preterm babies are at higher risk for breathing problems, feeding difficulties, jaundice, difficulties regulating body temperature and death compared to term babies. • During 2004-2006 (average), the very preterm birth rate in the United States was highest for black infants (4.1%), followed by Native Americans (2.1%), Hispanics (1.8%), whites (1.6%) and Asians (1.5%). • Black infants (4.1%) were about 3 times as likely as Asian infants (1.5%) to be born very preterm during 2004-2006 (average). • Very premature babies who survive may suffer lifelong consequences, including cerebral palsy, blindness and other chronic conditions. • During 2003-2005 (average), the infant mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) in the United States was highest for black infants (13.6), followed by Native Americans (8.5), whites (5.7), Hispanics (5.6) and Asians (4.7). • Black infants (13.6) were about 3 times as likely as Asian infants (4.7) to die during the first year of life during 2003-2005 (average). www.marchofdimes.com/peristats/tlanding.aspx?dv=lt®=99&top=6&lev=0&slev=1But you haven't posted one statistic on biracial children? Aren't "they" the topic here? I cant find anything specific on bi-racial birth defects...all i could find is on each seperate ethnicity. Maybe you could find something... |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Jul 1, 2009 10:15:01 GMT -5
Marcie, I googled it and couldn't find anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jul 1, 2009 10:49:37 GMT -5
WHat? Are you people serious? That is like Genetics 101 I'm sorry. If you don't know what you are talking about, maybe it's best to keep to another subject. Cepha is right. Why are you all just digging for reasons to say that interracial marriage is wrong? At least learn a little about genetics and birth defects before you start using it as a platform for your prejudice. Excuse me... we are talking about black/white babies not MARRIAGE! And I'm not digging for anything! I was/am under the impression that bi-racial babies have better chances of having birth defects, THAT ALL! Thanks! No, you seem to only be talking about black babies AND white babies, not black/white babies! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Jul 1, 2009 12:01:31 GMT -5
Well, i know that. But if you think about it...black babies have a higher death rate, mix that with anyother ethnic person and the risks are higher for defects or death right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jul 1, 2009 12:14:31 GMT -5
Steven....okay, but the facts are still the same, regardless. Marcie said we should find stats, she never asked me to explain them. Whites aren't very far behind. But those facts are "not" relevant to the discussion. What's being suggested is that biracial babies are somewhat inferior to pure white or pure black babies. Where are the stats on biracial children? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jul 1, 2009 12:16:21 GMT -5
I couldn't find any stats on biracial babies. So then, do you believe that they are inferior (biologically) to pure white or pure black children? Obviously, there is no evidence that this is true. So how can anyone deduce this from the fact that when a race is too inbred it becomes defective? It's a theory that works against itself. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jul 1, 2009 12:18:05 GMT -5
I cant find anything specific on bi-racial birth defects...all i could find is on each seperate ethnicity. Maybe you could find something... Tried. But couldn't find anything. I guess that's because there isn't anything noteworthy to report on. It's a fact...when you mix races, you get superior genetic abilities to fight defects. When they used to mix horses and donkeys to get mules, the mules outperformed the horses and the donkeys!  |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Jul 1, 2009 12:18:13 GMT -5
Ok, im done trying to google, the information i found, i can barely understand what is being said. lol
|
|
