Discussion in 'World Events' started by Orleander, Aug 17, 2009.
.y.e.s. .t.h.e.y. .d.o. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
sorry i forgot to get back to you, "looking forward through the life span" C Peterson for one
On infant mortality
On still births im having more trouble finding the statistics. Will keep trying but the infant mortality rates do show that where you dont have a delibrate policy of "femicide", rates of males passing out of infancy are lower than rates for females. Actually the death rates across the whole life span are higher for males in industrilised countries (there are some discrepancies where girls are delibratly being killed and in countries which have poor access to anti and post natal care where women are more likly to die during child birth)
oh orleander, if you actually look specifically at deaths by genetic causes (ie dieases which are passed on the X to the children) the discrepencies are even higher because in some diseases a) a male wont make it to adulthood in order to father children and b) these diseases tend to be recessive because otherwise they wouldnt be passed on at all.
For a girl to get a ressessive faulty X caused disease you need BOTH the mother AND the father to suffer it. Which is less likly than a 50% chance that the mother passes it on the child.
Now there are some which strike latter in life and arnt X related where rates are similar but for most it strikes harder or at all for boys because the mother was a carrier
Walking around India the doctor's surgeries all have signs which say (more or less) "it is illegal for us to tell you the sex of your foetus so please do not ask".
So in answer to what moves are being made to fix the problem I guess stopping selective abortions by withholding knowledge is one thing.
Oh, so its not that girls are stronger babies its that male are more likely to have genetic diseases. thanks
i can't seem to find the paper i read to reference my claim, but: the normal ratio should be around 55 male : 50 female.
did you actually look at the post before that one with the whole list of links on infant mortality rates?
Across the whole life span males have a higher mortality rate from birth right through to about 90 where it equalises (because once you have lived that long no matter what your gender is your going to die soon).
The causes are various across the age groups (for instance in the teen group its car crashes, suicide and acidental deaths which are the highest causes) but the fact remains that from birth up (and im sure its prebirth as well though i cant find the still birth statistics) males are more likly to die.
vslayer i would love to see your reference because that goes against every statistic i have read wether its text books or sources like the ABS or simple common sense. Even from conception the chances are higher for female birth because x-sperm are less likly to die or suffer defects (like no head, 2 tails ect) which means inspite of what your taught at school its not a straight 50% chance. Then if a male sperm fertilises an egg the embrio and fetus are more likly to be misscarried or still born which further reduces the number of boys. Basically i think you have your numbers backwards, ie 55 girls to every 50 boys but that ratio reduces the further from birth you look at
but that doesn't mean girls are stronger. Boys might take more risks, have more chances of having a genetic disease, but that doesn't mean girls are stronger.
Are males more likely to get colds, the flue, chicken pox, etc? Are their immunity systems weaker?
Separate names with a comma.