Sudden infant death syndrome - Ensign article

[telnetd]

The church magazine makes these statements.

"In most societies, bearing children out of wedlock has traditionally been considered an embarrassment
and a disgrace. But in today's world, where good is called evil and evil good (see Isa. 5:20), the stigma
of nonmarital childbearing has largely vanished. Not only is this practice a sin in the eyes of heaven, but
researchers have found out-of-wedlock birth to be associated with several risks for the baby. For instance, 
compared with children born to married couples, children born out of wedlock are more likely to die of
sudden infant death syndrome, suffer death due to injury, or eventually become juvenile offenders".

Is this higher rate of sudden death syndrome for an infant who has only one live-in parent or for a couple
who are not married?  

What would the reason be? 

[CA Steve]

17 minutes ago, telnetd said:

The church magazine makes these statements.

"In most societies, bearing children out of wedlock has traditionally been considered an embarrassment
and a disgrace. But in today's world, where good is called evil and evil good (see Isa. 5:20), the stigma
of nonmarital childbearing has largely vanished. Not only is this practice a sin in the eyes of heaven, but
researchers have found out-of-wedlock birth to be associated with several risks for the baby. For instance, 
compared with children born to married couples, children born out of wedlock are more likely to die of
sudden infant death syndrome, suffer death due to injury, or eventually become juvenile offenders".

Is this higher rate of sudden death syndrome for an infant who has only one live-in parent or for a couple
who are not married?  

What would the reason be? 

I strongly suspect that if one controls for economic factors, family support and divorce, the disparity between married and single parent SIDS would go away.

IOWs, it isn't the "evil" act that raises the chances of SIDs, but the level of care that can be provided the infant after birth.

 

I suspect a study of parents who are a gay couple would show that SIDs is no more likely for them than a traditional couple.

 

Edited June 24, 2023 by CA Steve

[Duncan]

There is a couple in our ward, both RMS, married in the temple, who had a child die from SIDS. I would imagine though research in this area has gone one since 2005 when the article was written. 

[bluebell]

52 minutes ago, telnetd said:

The church magazine makes these statements.

"In most societies, bearing children out of wedlock has traditionally been considered an embarrassment
and a disgrace. But in today's world, where good is called evil and evil good (see Isa. 5:20), the stigma
of nonmarital childbearing has largely vanished. Not only is this practice a sin in the eyes of heaven, but
researchers have found out-of-wedlock birth to be associated with several risks for the baby. For instance, 
compared with children born to married couples, children born out of wedlock are more likely to die of
sudden infant death syndrome, suffer death due to injury, or eventually become juvenile offenders".

Is this higher rate of sudden death syndrome for an infant who has only one live-in parent or for a couple
who are not married?  

What would the reason be? 

From what I've read, it's largely the age of the mother that increases the rate of SIDS, and out of wedlock babies are often born to young (usually teenage) mothers.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

There is a couple in our ward, both RMS, married in the temple, who had a child die from SIDS. I would imagine though research in this area has gone one since 2005 when the article was written. 

The findings are still pretty much the same I think.  Not because of being born out of wedlock specifically but because children born to young mothers tend to fare worse than those who aren't.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, CA Steve said:

, it isn't the "evil" act that raises the chances of SIDs, but the level of care that can be provided the infant after birth.

I think it helps understand the point of this article (and others) by remembering the reason something is likely deemed “evil” as in most cases in the Church we don’t view evil in everyday life as evil because we simply call it evil,  but because of the impact an act has on people’s lives, whether it creates more hardship for people, as often may occur with out of wedlock births happening for young women and single mothers who may lack the support that is more likely to be there in a committed long term relationship, or it lowers the likelihood the individuals involved will be able to pursue better situations as easily as they could before the appearance of the “evil” in their lives.  A young single mother is less likely to be able to get as much education as she desires, which then leads to lower paying jobs, which then leads to having to work more, which then leads to less time with their children and higher stress overall.

Having said that…

I feel the article could be written better because that quote can too easily be read the child itself is the issue and no child should be seen as an evil.  The sin is not the out of wedlock birth.  In fact given the likelihood that person resisted the choice to abort the child, that act could be seen as righteousness.  And many out of wedlock births should even be applauded, imo, especially in the case of rape survivors and those women who make the decision to turn their lives around because now there is a child who depends on them.  The “evil” is the lack of control over actions that led to premarital sexual relationships and one needs to therefore be careful not to shift the focus to a consequence of those choices because it may have unintended consequences, including shaming those who do not deserve to be shamed and turning children themselves into “evils”.   If one took that paragraph quoted in isolation it comes across as a promotion for abortion…at least to me…and my guess is that is the last thing the writer desires.  In the context of the rest of the article (that starts out valuing children and condemning abortion) it is unlikely to be an issue, the section is about adoption of out of wedlock children.  Still it makes me uneasy because it feels rather black and white for a topic that often involves the very vulnerable, pregnant teens and young adults.

I think it is more useful to talk of sins and mistakes as this more likely will convey that it’s not too late to change things for the better.  I personally don’t approve of using stigmas to motivate people.  Shame too often can backfire, I see it as unhealthy.  Teach instead the healthy reasons to make choices rather than promote fear of social ostracism.

Edited June 24, 2023 by Calm

[The Nehor]

“Abortion is a two-edged sword. Not only does it encourage selfishness and the promiscuous use of the powers of procreation, this widespread practice often makes adoption more difficult for married couples who are unable to bear children of their own.”

LOL! Oh c’mon. Yep, there aren’t any kids out there to adopt. That is a big problem in our overloaded foster care system. Not enough children.

Also the fun bit about children are less valued because people are having less of them. One doesn’t follow from the other.

Edited June 24, 2023 by The Nehor

[MustardSeed]

I feel like the idea of punishments and shame of being pregnant and unmarried is really a torch against unmarried sex, especially against women.  
“Let’s bring back shame” movement is not going to get a vote from me, especially as long as the shame scales are imbalanced for men and women in that category. 

Edited June 25, 2023 by MustardSeed

[MustardSeed]

Also linking SIDS to unwed parents sounds suspiciously spiritually manipulative to me. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 hours ago, telnetd said:

The church magazine makes these statements.

"In most societies, bearing children out of wedlock has traditionally been considered an embarrassment
and a disgrace. But in today's world, where good is called evil and evil good (see Isa. 5:20), the stigma
of nonmarital childbearing has largely vanished. Not only is this practice a sin in the eyes of heaven, but
researchers have found out-of-wedlock birth to be associated with several risks for the baby. For instance, 
compared with children born to married couples, children born out of wedlock are more likely to die of
sudden infant death syndrome, suffer death due to injury, or eventually become juvenile offenders".

Is this higher rate of sudden death syndrome for an infant who has only one live-in parent or for a couple
who are not married?  

What would the reason be? 
 

This critic thinks it’s worth pointing out the article is 20 years old and unsigned. That said it’s really horrible. 

[Rain]

11 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This critic thinks it’s worth pointing out the article is 20 years old and unsigned. That said it’s really horrible. 

I wondered about that.  I first looked on my phone and wasn't sure.  But yes, I hope talk like that is done with because it is bad and like @MustardSeed manipulative.

Edited June 25, 2023 by Rain

[JAHS]

11 hours ago, telnetd said:

The church magazine makes these statements.

"In most societies, bearing children out of wedlock has traditionally been considered an embarrassment
and a disgrace. But in today's world, where good is called evil and evil good (see Isa. 5:20), the stigma
of nonmarital childbearing has largely vanished. Not only is this practice a sin in the eyes of heaven, but
researchers have found out-of-wedlock birth to be associated with several risks for the baby. For instance, 
compared with children born to married couples, children born out of wedlock are more likely to die of
sudden infant death syndrome, suffer death due to injury, or eventually become juvenile offenders".

Is this higher rate of sudden death syndrome for an infant who has only one live-in parent or for a couple
who are not married?  

What would the reason be? 

My wife and I had a SIDS baby; only 5 weeks old. Our subsequent babies were put on respiration/heart monitors for most of their first year of life, including her twin brother.
There were no risk factors involved. The only likely reason might have been a brain defect.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

I feel like the idea of punishments and shame of being pregnant and unmarried is really a torch against unmarried sex, especially against women.  
“Let’s bring back shame” movement is not going to get a vote from me, especially as long as the shame scales are imbalanced for men and women in that category. 

This was a 2005 article.  It sounded older to me. I highly doubt it would get published today. 

Edited June 25, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

11 hours ago, telnetd said:

The church magazine makes these statements.

"In most societies, bearing children out of wedlock has traditionally been considered an embarrassment
and a disgrace. But in today's world, where good is called evil and evil good (see Isa. 5:20), the stigma
of nonmarital childbearing has largely vanished. Not only is this practice a sin in the eyes of heaven, but
researchers have found out-of-wedlock birth to be associated with several risks for the baby. For instance, 
compared with children born to married couples, children born out of wedlock are more likely to die of
sudden infant death syndrome, suffer death due to injury, or eventually become juvenile offenders".

Is this higher rate of sudden death syndrome for an infant who has only one live-in parent or for a couple
who are not married?  

What would the reason be? 

Why did you choose to post an article from 2005? 

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This critic thinks it’s worth pointing out the article is 20 years old and unsigned. That said it’s really horrible. 

That is fair. I have some since discontinued publications from the 70s. There is stuff that would not be found in a modern church magazine article.

[Stargazer]

19 hours ago, telnetd said:

The church magazine makes these statements.

"In most societies, bearing children out of wedlock has traditionally been considered an embarrassment
and a disgrace. But in today's world, where good is called evil and evil good (see Isa. 5:20), the stigma
of nonmarital childbearing has largely vanished. Not only is this practice a sin in the eyes of heaven, but
researchers have found out-of-wedlock birth to be associated with several risks for the baby. For instance, 
compared with children born to married couples, children born out of wedlock are more likely to die of
sudden infant death syndrome, suffer death due to injury, or eventually become juvenile offenders".

Is this higher rate of sudden death syndrome for an infant who has only one live-in parent or for a couple
who are not married?  

What would the reason be? 

I've only personally known two instances of SIDS. One was my granddaughter who died at 2 months old. Her parents were my daughter and her live-in boyfriend. There was no lack of care, including from grandparents. The other was a married couple of my acquaintance. Another instance involved a family I did not know, but the father was a man familiar to me due to his newspaper column which I followed. His son died at just a few months old, and horribly enough the baby died in his father's arms. He just stopped breathing and his breathing couldn't be restarted.

I suppose that the proposed statistical incidence mentioned above is accurate, but it obviously isn't definitive. 

In the Wiki article about SIDS, I found this: "...the peak incidence occurring when the infant is two to four months old. This is considered a critical period because the infant's ability to rouse from sleep is not yet mature." FWIW.

In Bill Bryson's book, "The Mother Tongue: English, and How it Got That Way" he mentions that there is a certain developmental stage of the human throat structure that occurs around two to four months of age, and it is suspected that failures or maldevelopments around that time may contribute to SIDS. But the book was written in 2001, so I don't know if this idea has been superseded by others since then.

Edited June 25, 2023 by Stargazer

[telnetd]

On 6/24/2023 at 10:32 PM, Calm said:

Why did you choose to post an article from 2005? 

It's something I found in a search at lds.org

[halconero]

On 6/24/2023 at 8:52 AM, CA Steve said:

I strongly suspect that if one controls for economic factors, family support and divorce, the disparity between married and single parent SIDS would go away.

IOWs, it isn't the "evil" act that raises the chances of SIDs, but the level of care that can be provided the infant after birth.

 

I suspect a study of parents who are a gay couple would show that SIDs is no more likely for them than a traditional couple.

 

Yeah, there are some unobserved confounders in there that make causation unattributable to marital status IMO. Unwed parents can include both single and partnered individuals. For obvious reasons, having two eyes on a baby is less risky. As others have mentioned, being unwed or unpartnered with a baby is also highly correlated with things like low-income status, which is a predictor for SIDS.

If you really wanted to get at whether unwed status itself predicts SIDS, you could compare a gay couple to a married heterosexual couple. If you wanted to match them even more closely, you'd compare a married heterosexual couple to a common law heterosexual couple with identical or near-identical demographic backgrounds (income, geography, etc.)