NationStates Jolt Archive

i was watching a progrm last night newsnight credible bbc news program that debates an anlyzies things etc

and about 33% of pregent american woman die of homicide.
that is disterbing what do americans think ?

Bleh, ignore this.

i mean newsnight sry mistak

Oh good. I was just about to ask if you were a Press Packer;)

(Does anyone know if they still have them)

It is actually very interesting. Gotta love the Beeb putting their news programs on the internet to be rewathched.
Newsnight (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm)

The attacks of 9/11 cost 2,752 lives and roughly $16.2 billion in direct damages. In retailation, we have spent over a thousand American lives to "fight terror," and our monetary bill has long since moved into the hundreds of billions of dollars.

Yet...

In 2001, among all female murder victims in the U.S., 31% were slain by their husbands or boyfriends (Uniform Crime Reports, 2001, FBI). Family violence costs the nation from $5 to $10 billion annually (American Medical Association). Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women between 14 and 41 years of age. Thirty five percent of American women, over 5 million citizens of the United States, report having been beaten by a romantic partner.

And how much time and effort are we putting toward this problem? Well, there are three times as many animal shelters in America as there are battered women's shelters. The government's allocation for this little War On Domestic Terror were at their highest back in the days of the Violence Against Women Act, with $1.6 billion being allocated for a period of five years. Currently, less than a quarter billion a year in federal spending goes toward projects that are even remotely related to combating domestic violence.

wow like bottle said its quite unsettling and im english!!

Heh. A pound doesnt become a nice place just because you call it a shelter.

And its not such a disturbing statistic when you consider the fact that there are three hundered million americans. And they're all nuts.

good point culture ,mass insanity ,the americian way ,rednecks who knows th cause

The attacks of 9/11 cost 2,752 lives and roughly $16.2 billion in direct damages. In retailation, we have spent over a thousand American lives to "fight terror," and our monetary bill has long since moved into the hundreds of billions of dollars.

Yet...

In 2001, among all female murder victims in the U.S., 31% were slain by their husbands or boyfriends (Uniform Crime Reports, 2001, FBI). Family violence costs the nation from $5 to $10 billion annually (American Medical Association). Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women between 14 and 41 years of age. Thirty five percent of American women, over 5 million citizens of the United States, report having been beaten by a romantic partner.

And how much time and effort are we putting toward this problem? Well, there are three times as many animal shelters in America as there are battered women's shelters. The government's allocation for this little War On Domestic Terror were at their highest back in the days of the Violence Against Women Act, with $1.6 billion being allocated for a period of five years. Currently, less than a quarter billion a year in federal spending goes toward projects that are even remotely related to combating domestic violence.

It's the American Way.

Cigarettes kill 400,000 people a year, but the government bans artificial sweeteners because they gave rats cancer. http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0304/traurig/sad-smiley-007.gif

i was watching a progrm last night newsnight credible bbc news program that debates an anlyzies things etc

and about 33% of pregent american woman die of homicide.
that is disterbing what do americans think ?Since nowhere near 33% of pregnant women die, I think you mean to say that 33% of the deaths of pregnant women are from homicide.

Incidentally, I believe the act of childbirth itself is in the top 10 on that list.

i ment that die in anyway and it beats drugs overdose aids dieng of childbirth etc

We all have to go sometime. Besides, how are you supposed to deal with a wife/girlfriend who consistently burns dinner?

It's probably because of custody disputes, or overbearing husbands/boyfriends. Some kill their wives, I've heard, just because they've married them as trophy wives, and that a child will ruin that.

its probably not their fault that they burn dinner. it could be the oven. sometimes, especially if its an older oven, if u set the temperature to bake, it actually warms up to a much warmer temp.

its not the womens' fault that they are murdered. what can they do about it? (besides go get help, but most of them dont know that there are shelters and ppl out there that want to help them).

Seems like some Americans are no better then some Islamic nations. If these statistics are true, isn't it about time for a "War on terror against women"?

I suspect this is not raised as a important matter as Islamic nations can point to the US and say they treat their women just as badly as themselves.

Seems like some Americans are no better then some Islamic nations. If these statistics are true, isn't it about time for a "War on terror against women"?
Yeah, we make them cover themselves up in public, prohibit them from driving cars, prohibit them from leaving the country, or even their home, without a male relative, make them get 4 witnesses if they claim they were raped, and stone them to death if they can't get enough witnesses. We're just as bad as a muslim nation.

i was watching a progrm last night newsnight credible bbc news program that debates an anlyzies things etc

and about 33% of pregent american woman die of homicide.
that is disterbing what do americans think ?

33%? I doubt that. Then real estate wouldn't be nearly as high. :D

Listen guy, if you are going to try and discuss statistics, at least get your numbers straight. There's problems all over this thread with obviously inaccurate numbers.

Lets see:

33% of pregnant women die of homicide
Try again. While the 33% percent of all women who died while pregnant, may have died because of homicide, it's plain it wasnt 33% of ALL pregnant women.
Lets see, there are about 4 million births in the US in a year. So that would mean around 2 million pregnant American women were murdered.
But the total number of reported murders is around 20,000. Dont you think we would notice if an increase of 1.98 million murders per year were to occur, and all of them were pregnant women?

Thirty five percent of American women, over 5 million citizens of the United States report having been beaten by a romantic partner

Lets see, 35 percent of American women = 5 million. Since Women comprise a little over 50% of the population, we can extrapolate this to mean that the US has a total of 30 million people? You'll have to check that again.
Perhaps you meant 3.5%? A far different number than 35%.
In addition, that doesnt mean that 3.5% of women were beaten this year. Since we have women in our country 18-100 or so, all this statistic means, is that sometime during the last 80 years, 3.5% of American women were abused by a partner.
I know this because with a total of a little over 1 million reported cases of assaults or rapes (rapes comprising less than 1% of the total number, murders about 1/10th of a percent), that would mean less than 1% of female population was a victim each year, IF you assume that EVERY case was against a woman and EVERY case was by a romantic partner, which obviously is not the case.


Seriously though, statistics are fun to talk about, but if they arent put into proper context and reported accurately, they are an absolute waste of time.

It doesn't surprise me.

Try again. While the 33% percent of all women who died while pregnant, may have died because of homicide, it's plain it wasnt 33% of ALL pregnant women.
Lets see, there are about 4 million births in the US in a year. So that would mean around 2 million pregnant American women were murdered.

It would seem to me 33% of 4 million would be 1.33 million, not 2 million (50%). Irony is a bitch. :p

Irony sure, that you posted a mistake ;)

4 million births, right? That's 66% of the total pregnant women, because the other 33% were killed, thereby never giving birth. Therefore, it would have been 6 million births, had they lived.

33% of 6 million is 2 million. (rounded figures of course)

Some people never do get those word problems in math :p

Irony sure, that you posted a mistake ;)

4 million births, right? That's 66% of the total pregnant women, because the other 33% were killed, thereby never giving birth. Therefore, it would have been 6 million births, had they lived.

33% of 6 million is 2 million. (rounded figures of course)

Some people never do get those word problems in math :p

And some people just don't know how to phrase a simple sentence. :rolleyes: It should have read something along the lines of:

If there are 6 million pregnancies a year, then 2 million women pregnant women are killed each year.

In retrospect, the problem wasn't with your math; but that you started with a half-completed problem, and then continued forward. As a general rule, one starts math at the beginning and goes from there. Unless you do things differently where you live. :rolleyes:

It wasnt half stated at all. The actual numbers involved only stated what the total number of births was. There arent 6 million pregnancies a year, so the way you phrased that statement would be incorrect. There are 4 million births. You have to extrapolate from there using the 33% death rate put forth by the original poster to derive a hypothetical number of pregnancies.
I stated it just that way:
Lets see, there are about 4 million births in the US in a year. So that would mean around 2 million pregnant American women were murdered.
So no, I didnt start with a half completed problem. I stated the variables involved, then provided the answer, without bothering to post the intervening math.
I suppose I could have said:
4 million births with a death rate of 33% for all pregnant women means that those 4 million births represent 2/3 of total pregnancies. 4 million divided by 2/3 = 6 million pregnancies. 33% of 6 million is 2 million, so 2 million pregnant women would have been murdered. All numbers rounded for ease of course.

Where I live we figure people bold enough to post a correction to a math problem, can figure out the middle part of an equation without it being detailed line by line for them :p

And Im teasing you, which isnt always obvious on forums, so no need to get irritated if it isnt reading that way :)

You're all talking about solving a problem that is, in essence, utterly impossible. You can't control what two humans do to one another on an individual basis.

As the statistics have now been accurately put down, the problem...though still significant is recognized and not blown utterly out of proportion. I wonder what the reading level of the person who posted this thread is?

Anyway, one thing I was startled to find, is that Canada has a higher rape rate per 100,000 population than the US... very strange considering their usual dearth of other crimes... but apparently it is that way according to the UN and other statistics sources.

It wasnt half stated at all. The actual numbers involved only stated what the total number of births was. There arent 6 million pregnancies a year

4 million births with a death rate of 33% for all pregnant women means that those 4 million births represent 2/3 of total pregnancies. 4 million divided by 2/3 = 6 million pregnancies.

...so tell me then. If "all pregnant women" and "total pregnancies" does not infer all pregnant women/pregnancies in a given year, what does it infer? You state a 33% death rate for all pregnant women. You go on to use math to show 4 million births means 6 million pregnancies. However, those 6 million pregnancies aren't in one year according to your first quote.

So are we talking about 6 million pregnancies over the entirety or time? In one state? In one specific (non-year) time interval? And if it wasn't a year, why did you not feel it necessary to make reference to exactly when/where these 6 million pregnancies are taken from?

The fact remains, you phrased your sentence in a needlessly complicated way. If there are 6 million pregnancies (which your own math argues), then it's safe to assume there are 6 million pregnant women. Technically one woman could get pregnant twice in the same year, but whatever.

If there are 6 million pregnant women, and 1/3 of all pregnant women die by homocide, then 2 million pregnant women die of homocide. Or we can shorten this to:

Out of 6 million pregnant women per (insert frame of reference here), 2 million will die by homocide.

Instead you leave out useful information (the total number of women) and throw in useless information (4 million, 66% of pregant women).

We don't need to know how many women live. We just need to know how many die, out of how many total. The part of the math you claim you didn't leave out was the total number of women who are pregnant. It can be inferred, yes. But you could have just stated it outright, and left out the number 4 million altogether. :rolleyes: Hence 'half-completed' math. The equation isn't finished until you show the total number of pregnant women.

For the record, I speed read. This means I do not read every word of a sentence or paragraph. I skim over it briefly, pick out key words, and infer what is stated from the important parts. Even though "went store buy cheese" is missing 4 words, I can still understand its basic meaning - just as I can understand most messages without reading every word.

However when a setence is badly phrased or written, particularly if it contains useless information while leaving out actually useful information, speed reading causes the reader to misinterpret what is being said. Like assuming you claim there are 4 million pregnancies, of which 2 million end in death.

4 million should never have been there to begin with, it only serves to cause confusion. The sentence should simply have stated only what was needed: the total number of pregnant women (6 million) and the number of pregnant women who die (2 million).

Y'know, I just realized how much of an asshole that last post makes me come across as. Not that I'm above assholish-ness when I feel like it, but in this case it wasn't intentional. So yeah. Sorry.

now that we have disposed of the obvious

pregnant women are for the most part young healthy women. there aren't alot of "good" reasons for anyone in the age group to die.

so instead of auto accident or slipping in the tub, its homocide.

There is no way 33% of American women die from murder.

Show me a valid link proving otherwise, and I'll agree with you.

i was watching a progrm last night newsnight credible bbc news program that debates an anlyzies things etc

and about 33% of pregent american woman die of homicide.
that is disterbing what do americans think ?So?...

Sydinia, the reason it is worded the way I did, is because 4 million births is the real world factual number as seen hereNational Center for Health Statistics (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/03news/lowbirth.htm)
If I did like you said, and just stated there are 6 million pregnancies, I would be totally making that up. I certainly dont want to say something about the use of statistics, and then use bogus ones myself. Therefore, I have to use the real number (4 million births) and extrapolate from there to determine how many women would have been murdered using a 33% death rate of pregnant women.

So you see, when I said there wasnt 6 million pregnancies, it's because there wasnt. Not over 1 year, not over multiple years, because thats not what we're talking about. We're talking about how many women would have had to have been murdered in the US based upon the original posters assertion of 33% death rate. Given the real world figure of approx 4 million births, we infer that 2 million pregnant women would have to be murdered every year to make his statistic true. (Barring twins, triplets, etc.)
Thats why my first post never mentioned 6 million pregnancies at all.

The variable here isnt the number of pregnancies, it's the death rate he is claiming. If he were to say it was 20%, the number of real births still remains at 4 million, and the extrapolated number of deaths per year would be 1 million. (If 20% died, then 4 million who lived is 80%, do the math and you can see that 20% therefore = 1 million)
You wouldnt start with 5 million pregnanacies in your math and go from there, because people would want to know where you got that 5 million number from in the first place, and the answer would be, you made it up. That's why I used the real, researchable number of births and the real, researchable number of murders in the US per year and worked from there.

BTW Speed kills
;)