[TheOrator]

Good stuff there, Orator. Were this not an Internet forum I'd say that you should cite your sources.

Thanks, Civ#2

I'd first like to say debate class was a terrible experience. I'd then like to say the wikipedia and the CIA world factbook.

EDIT:

DS, while you're busy correcting yourself, it actually should have been "Earlier I wrote." "Earlier" implies a unique while unspecified time, and so the simple past is appropriate. The tense you used is called the "present perfect," to indicate an action that has taken place in the past and which continues now, eg "I have written about this." The way you used it, you could say "I have written about this in the past," to indicate writing that covered a period of time before, but the implication in any case would be that you continue to write about it (and in fact you do), or at least that you are discussing a current topic. "I have written about this very thing [that you are writing about now]"

This isn't really my area (were Laura here, she could school you), but you shouldn't worry about grammar anyway. Not here.

I'd first like to implant a 'Stop: It's Grammar Time (Do doot doot doot, doot doo, doot doo)' at the beginning of that paragraph.

Then I'd like to defend DS by saying it's always a good time to care about grammar.

Respect your elders!

(I do apologize for that)

This post has been edited by TheOrator: 16 February 2007 - 12:00 AM

[Deepsycher]

I am fussy over my grammar, I sometimes recognize mistakes when I remember the post but not always here at the time to correct them. I had tuition in that area recently but I am becoming more senstive to what I want to say by editing. So "have" shouldn't be there looking at it now with "earlier" in that context. Thanks for the explanation. What happened earlier on is that I over ate at a pub whilst making that statement and I was slightly drunk with cider at the time. Sorry about that I could have saved all this mess if I left it tomorrow. Despite the drunkess, slipping over myself is a habit I am trying to get out of if only I can see my mistakes before posting. Oh and I don't see a Laura in this thread.

Getting to the point. I am a bit out of touch. After reading the article or when you get a chance. Is kidnapping and stealing babies for stem cell research and organ transplants included in the mortality rates?

Also months ago on the news in China about prisoners who are slaughtered for body parts. Now if the news cannot be trusted could that be a cover for stolen babies?

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 16 February 2007 - 12:48 AM

[TheOrator]

Well, DS, the Infant Mortality Rate is based upon the number of live births, per 1000, that die before their first birthday. I suppose any 'foul play' that occurs in between birth and the first birthday would count against them in that department, but, common as the practice may seem, it is really quite rare on the grand scale of things. Most of the kids mentioned here were well above the age of one, so I doubt they count. But it was a good point, DS. I should assume any cause of death gets counted.

And stem cells are found only in undeveloped fetuses, so people don't steal babies for those.

And I am also interested about your note on the Chinese news story, but mainly the news cannot be trusted because of the reporter's political bias. For instance, if some politician in one party were to say something bad, it is likely to be avoided by a similarly minded reporter, but would be dwelt upon incessantly by political opponents and their similarly minded reporters. I don't think there are any political battles about Baby Organ Harvesting, but I'm not really with the times in China. So I doubt that the news would lie about something like that.