Single Mothers

[pjanus]

A woman, in the article, says "rather than vilifying single mothers we should look at the socio- economic factors...."

but a man says different.





Single mothers three times more likely to have children who die young

By DANIEL MARTIN 23rd August 2007

Single mothers are more likely to have children who die young

Single mothers are more than three times more likely to give birth to children who die young than the off spring of married professionals.
New figures show that babies born to married couples are far less likely to die before their first birthday than those whose father is estranged or unknown.
The children of single mothers were also more likely to have dangerously low birth weights and to be born prematurely.
Experts said the differences were down to the fact that single parents were usually poorer than married ones. They and their children lived less healthy lifestyles and were less likely to seek help from their doctor.
The Office for National Statistics looked at all births and categorised them into those who were born to professional couples, lower middle-class couples, working-class couples and single mothers.
The single mother figure was not split up according to the social class of the mother.
The ONS found that 2.8 per 1,000 babies born to single mothers die between the age of one month and one year, compared to 0.8 among those born to managerial or professional couples.
Single mothers are twice as likely to have children who die young than those babies born to couples where the father is in a manual occupation.
The findings are just as stark among babies born prematurely - before 37 weeks. Of these, 13.7 per 1,000 died if their mother was single compared to only 5.8 to professional couples.
In general, single mothers are more likely to give birth to children pre-term and with a low birth weight, putting them at risk of health problems in later life.
The ONS also found that 9.6 per cent of all single mothers gave birth to babies prematurely, compared to only 6.7 per cent for managerial and professional couples.
For babies born very prematurely indeed - those at less than 28 weeks - the difference is even more stark. Single mothers were around 50 per cent more likely to give birth to babies before 28 weeks.
As well as being more likely to die young, children born underweight are prone to a low IQ, poor cognitive functioining and learning disabilities. They are also more likely to exhibit behavioural problems at school. Britain has the second worst rate for low birth weights in western Europe.
Jane Brewin, chief executive of the premature baby charity Tommy's said: "These statistics are absolutely shocking. The disparities shown in this research give a clear indication that more research urgently needs to be done into this area.
"Rather than vilifying single mothers, it is important that we look into the wider socio-economic factors that are impacting on this phenomenon."
Norman Wells of Family and Youth Concern said: "No one disputes the fact that lone parents can successfully raise children in the most difficult of circumstances.
"But at the same time, all the available evidence tells us that, on average, children do far better when they are brought up by a mother and father who have made a lifelong commitment to each other in marriage.
"We don't do anyone any favours if we try to pretend that all family forms are of equal value to children and to society."
Overall, there were 3,200 deaths in the first year of life among all babies born in 2005 - giving an overall death rate of 5 per 1,000. But while the death rate was only 1.8 per 1,000 for babies born at full term, it shot up to 42.1 for babies born prematurely.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1774

[Yan Yan]

"But at the same time, all the available evidence tells us that, on average, children do far better when they are brought up by a mother and father who have made a lifelong commitment to each other in marriage."

Bollocks! A stupid and very insular observation made by a limited western fuckwit that means well.

Children do better when they know and understand that both their mother and father are looking out for their best interest.
The wise mothers and fathers put their personal differences aside when it comes down to their children. People that truly love their kids would never use them as a weapon.

[ACLAF]

Originally Posted by pjanus

"But at the same time, all the available evidence tells us that, on average, children do far better when they are brought up by a mother and father who have made a lifelong commitment to each other in marriage.

Well... No shit. AFN has repeatedly stated that she doesn't know how she'd have made it through without me. It's a lot less stress on mothers if they have support available, than if they don't.

The most ridiculous thing isn't that they printed this, it's that they consider it so shocking and controversial.

[pjanus]

Originally Posted by pjanus

Norman Wells of Family and Youth Concern said: "No one disputes the fact that lone parents can successfully raise children in the most difficult of circumstances.
"But at the same time, all the available evidence tells us that, on average, children do far better when they are brought up by a mother and father who have made a lifelong commitment to each other in marriage.
"We don't do anyone any favours if we try to pretend that all family forms are of equal value to children and to society."

Well (expletive deleted) me!

You would think that in this day and age of women being allowed IVF treatment without the necessity of a father being considered as relevant to the life that they are creating, that this statement would be welcome.

It seems to me that, whether or not the paper thinks it controversial to print this, the fact that someone has had the courage to say something so un-PC and get it in national print, is a step in the right direction.

[Kim]

We don't do anyone any favours if we try to pretend that all family forms are of equal value to children and to society

Amen. I think it's refreshing to hear somebody admit this...beyond the world of men's rights and conservative Christianity. Regardless of how you feel on the marriage issue, the fact is, a woman can not do "as good a job" raising a child on her own as she could with a father present, not even close...not even near. Children need both parents involved in every aspect of their lives.

[SmtmsAlwys]

After reading the article, my first thought is not about gender, or about the lack of a father - contrary to popular belief, not all single mothers are actually single by choice. The thing that concerned me more here was age. Many single mothers tend to be young, and thus immature and lacking knowledge about proper care of babies and children. In many cases, they can barely even care for themselves.

Myself, I think that it should be strongly encouraged for young parents to enroll in parenting courses that teach them some of the skills they need.

Obviously the best solution would be to teach our children to be more responsible about their choices, alas it's too late for many.

[IronLady]

I don't think being raised by a single mother is always a guarantee of poor outcome, but the way it's being done today, it often is.

Years ago I knew a woman who raised her only child, a boy, by herself after her husband was wrongly executed in 1936. She died in 1994, at age 96, and she had a very, very hard life, especially since it was a very well-known case.

Her son turned out fine....he served in the US Army during the Korean War, and then got a good job with the US Postal Service.

I also know that the champion cyclist, Lance Armstrong, was raised by a single mother whose husband abandoned her and her baby (Lance). She raised him herself, from age 16 on, and, well, we see how he turned out. Seven time-Tour De France world champion, and he is in the Guinness Book.

Its not always all bad!

[Kim]

It's not that a single mom can't do a decent job raising a child, it's that the chances of her being able to do a good job are significantly lower than they are for a child that has both a mother and father in his/her life. It's one thing when a woman, by no fault of her own, is left to raise a child without the father, it's an entirely different matter when a woman chooses to raise her a child without a father because she's bought into the feminist myth that a mother can do just as good of a job (or better) than a mother and father. I know a great woman who's raising her kids on her own, and she's doing the very best job she can, but she hates it. She hates it that the kids don't have their father, she hates that they are missing out on that male guidance. She would do anything in the world to have her husband back. Although she does a great job, she's still greatly saddened by the one thing her children lack that she CANNOT give them...their father.

[bachelor tom]

I think kids benefit from all kinds of adults in their lives.

In pre-industrial societies with extended families, children would be surrounded with aunts uncles cousins grandparents etc. I think even two parents have a hard time, especially if there are personality conflicts. And of course many families have two working parents, so the kids don't really see either one that much.

There are lots of single mothers in my workplace, I don't think any of them are happy to be raising a child alone.

[Yan Yan]

Originally Posted by SmtmsAlwys

After reading the article, my first thought is not about gender, or about the lack of a father - contrary to popular belief, not all single mothers are actually single by choice.

Right, so some irresponsible male got them pregnant.They're victims innit?

Many single mothers tend to be young, and thus immature and lacking knowledge about proper care of babies and children. In many cases, they can barely even care for themselves.

So what were their mothers doing when their daughters were growing up?

Myself, I think that it should be strongly encouraged for young parents to enroll in parenting courses that teach them some of the skills they need.
Obviously the best solution would be to teach our children to be more responsible about their choices, alas it's too late for many.

Obviously??? Who is going to design and teach these courses?

Don't tell us. We already know the answer.

[FFFF]

Originally Posted by Annette1313

I don't think being raised by a single mother is always a guarantee of poor outcome, but the way it's being done today, it often is.

Years ago I knew a woman who raised her only child, a boy, by herself after her husband was wrongly executed in 1936. She died in 1994, at age 96, and she had a very, very hard life, especially since it was a very well-known case.

Her son turned out fine....he served in the US Army during the Korean War, and then got a good job with the US Postal Service.

I also know that the champion cyclist, Lance Armstrong, was raised by a single mother whose husband abandoned her and her baby (Lance). She raised him herself, from age 16 on, and, well, we see how he turned out. Seven time-Tour De France world champion, and he is in the Guinness Book.

Its not always all bad!

Indeed, very true..

i have seen stats that state that single mother raised kids do as well as kids from intact families..

the real problems start when the single mother decides she needs to get herself a new man and that becomes her priority..

they then seem to put the kids lower in priority and end up running round after some inadequate bloke..

[SmtmsAlwys]

Originally Posted by Yan Yan

Right, so some irresponsible male got them pregnant.They're victims innit?

So what were their mothers doing when their daughters were growing up?

Obviously??? Who is going to design and teach these courses?

Don't tell us. We already know the answer.

It's interesting to see how that it's automatically assumed that ppl here know what I'm saying when they're not even close. I never once said that some male got them pregnant - I'm fully aware it takes two. I never said anyone was a "victim," except perhaps the kids.