randk said:
I am assuming she did NOT receive gov assistance or they woulda known she was going to have a baby so she wouldnt have tried to dispose of it (besides, cant get aid for a baby thats dead) and just to claify...is it the mother we should stop trying to help or the baby? or both?
You're assuming too much in support of your own view. Let's use a basic set of facts:
The overwhelming majority of these things happen among poor people, so we can conclude poverty here.
Ever read "the bell curve"? One unwavering conclusion: poverty is usually the result of low intelligence. That's hard to debate, and the book presents a mountain of evidence to support it. Some exceptions, like disability, also are a cause.
So, low intelligence is obvious here, no? Keep in mind that the woman threw away her newborn.
If low intelligence is the root cause of poverty, then there is nothing we can do to eliminate poverty. Trillions of dollars spent on "poverty" have not made a dent, so, it is safe to say that poverty is here as long as low intelligence is here.
Do you disagree with any of this?
So, back to NO. Most of the better educated were not harmed by the storm, and if they were, they have insurance, they'll get back on their feet. The overwhelming majority of those evacuated were very poor, and possessed low intelligence.
Hurricane Katrina is an act of nature. Nature cares little for the individual, but a lot for a species. Natural events result in keeping the population where it is best for additional development.
if Nature is targeting the poor (low intelligence) for removal, why are we fighting that effort? We can never win.