Best nations to have kids, as ranked by "Save the Children"

[Nessus]

The Best-- and Worst-- Places To Be a Mother

Save the Children's 'State of the World's Mothers Report 2010' Shows Norway Tops the List, Afghanistan Ranks Last, U.S. Falls to 28th, Behind Many Other Wealthy Nations

WESTPORT, Conn. ( May 4, 2010) — Mothers in Norway and Australia are living in the best places in the world, according to Save the Children's 11th annual "Mothers' Index", which ranks the best and worst places to be a mother. Afghanistan ranked at the bottom of the list of 160 countries, which included 43 developed nations and 117 in the developing world.

The "Mothers' Index" is highlighted in Save the Children's State of the World's Mothers 2010 report, which examines the many ways women working on the front lines of health care are helping to save the lives of mothers, newborns and young children, and makes an urgent call to increase the number of front-line health workers in the world's poorest nations.

The Index is based on an analysis of indicators of women's and children's health and well-being, and clearly illustrates that providing mothers with access to education, economic opportunities and maternal and child health care gives mothers and their children the best chance to survive and thrive.

Top 10 Places To Be a Mother

Among the top 10 best places to be a mother: Norway ranks first, followed by Australia, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark, New Zealand, Finland, the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany. Among the bottom 10 places: Afghanistan ranks last, preceded by Niger, Chad, Guinea-Bissau, Yemen, Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali, Sudan, Eritrea and Equatorial Guinea.

The United States places 28, down from 27 in 2009, primarily because its rate for maternal mortality – 1 in 4,800 – is one of the highest in the developed world. The U.S. also ranks behind many other wealthy nations in terms of the generosity of maternity leave policies.

"While the situation in the United States needs to improve, mothers in the developing world are facing far greater risks to their own health and that of their children," said Mary Beth Powers, Save the Children's Newborn and Child Survival Campaign Chief. "The shortage of skilled birth attendants and challenges in accessing birth control means that women in countries at the bottom of the list face the most pregnancies and the most risky birth situations, resulting in newborn and maternal deaths."

Country Comparisons:

* Fewer than 15 percent of births are attended by skilled health personnel in Afghanistan and Chad. In Ethiopia, only 6 percent of births are attended. Skilled health personnel are present at virtually every birth in Norway.

* The risk for a woman to die of pregnancy or childbirth-related causes in Niger is 1 in 7. The risk is 1 in 8 in Afghanistan and Sierra Leone. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, Greece and Italy, the risk of maternal death is less than 1 in 25,000 and in Ireland it is less than 1 in 47,600.

* 1 child in 5 does not reach his or her fifth birthday in Angola, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo and Somalia. In Afghanistan, child mortality rates are higher than 1 in 4. In Finland, Iceland, Luxembourg and Sweden, only 1 child in 333 dies before age 5.

* A typical female in Afghanistan, Angola, Chad, Djibouti, Eritrea and Guinea-Bissau receives less than five years of formal education. In Niger, women receive less than four years. In Australia and New Zealand, the average woman stays in school for more than 20 years.

* In Afghanistan, Jordan, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Syria and Yemen, women earn 25 cents or less for every dollar men earn. Saudi Arabian and Palestinian women earn only 16 and 12 cents respectively to the male dollar. In Mongolia, women earn 87 cents for every dollar men earn and in Mozambique they earn 90 cents.

Well here's a pickle for the right-wingers. You can't exactly kill off a certain percentage of kiddy-winks before age 5 and hope that the ones you axed mostly comprised of the ones who'll grow up to be socialist mooching bastards instead of Semper Fi Chink-slayers. Or can you? I suppose time will tell!

(Hurf durf education and health care keep kiddies alive, whoda thunk it)

[littlelolligagged]

I think the paid-leave issue here is far worse than they are making it out to be - both for the mothers and the little darlings.

But remember, America has the best healthcare in the world!

I need to go vomit now.

[Khendraja'aro]

I remember that Sweden has the right to maternal and paternal leave written into law.

[Nessus]

So do we, btw

[Khendraja'aro]

Ah, okay, I just remembered an article by Der Spiegel about this subject and it made mention of Sweden as the forerunners in the attempt to raise childbirth rates.

[Flixy]

It might soon be EU wide, two weeks for fathers. We have two days over here, now, for the father.

[littlelolligagged]

Hmmm, is there an extended option - say x days for fathers, but then they can take y days unpaid or use regular vacation time as well without it endangering anything about their jobs or promotions or chances for pay raises?

[Hazir]

Hmmm, is there an extended option - say x days for fathers, but then they can take y days unpaid or use regular vacation time as well without it endangering anything about their jobs or promotions or chances for pay raises?

It sort of depends on your employer. I'm not surprised flixy doesn't really know about it; he's too young. At the place where I work you can reduce your workhours for a limited time (up to a year IIRC) but you'll have to take a cut in pay. The fiction however will be that you were employed as before. That's important for when you return or if you happen to wind up jobless.

[Lewkowski]

The United States places 28, down from 27 in 2009, primarily because its rate for maternal mortality – 1 in 4,800 – is one of the highest in the developed world.

I wonder what they attribute as the cause.

The United States tends to have more kids per couple then a lot of European countries. Risks for pregnancy go up after the first child which can skew it some. In addition the United States has a lot of illegal immigrants, are these factors in? There is a perverse incentive to quickly get pregnant and have an "anchor baby" in the United States.

I'm curious what the numbers are if they take out illegal immigrants, count only first child vs. first child as well as drop out all the voluntary self abusing potential mothers (ie crack heads) what the results would be.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yeah, because it can't be that socialist yuropean countries beat your shiny god blessed country right? There has to be a catch.

[EyeKhan]

I wonder what they attribute as the cause.

The United States tends to have more kids per couple then a lot of European countries. Risks for pregnancy go up after the first child which can skew it some. In addition the United States has a lot of illegal immigrants, are these factors in? There is a perverse incentive to quickly get pregnant and have an "anchor baby" in the United States.

I'm curious what the numbers are if they take out illegal immigrants, count only first child vs. first child as well as drop out all the voluntary self abusing potential mothers (ie crack heads) what the results would be.

Yeah, because it can't be that socialist yuropean countries beat your shiny god blessed country right? There has to be a catch.

Our numbers would be better if they filtered out women who die in childbirth too. Seems pretty unfair to include them, especially since they're usually poor and uneducted. Stupid fucking stats manipulations.

<shrug>

It's only really a consideration if you ignore basic natural laws and give a shit about the left side of the bell curve. Which, apparently, we are. Frankly, they really should just be grateful to be alive at all, considering how nature handles that side of the graph, but whatever. Yippie, democracy - where 10 mentally retarded wards of the state are worth tens times more than someone with a functional brain. Weeee!

Which basic natural laws are you talking about? Just curious.

It really baffles me as to why you've yet to find the glories of National Socialism

Well, there's believing and supporting what they believe, then there's calling yourself a dirty fucking Nazi bastard. Labels are important.

Because I don't give a shit about the strength of the group, obviously. I'm about individual rights -).

Funny, the group is always more fit than the individual in every way, except hiding maybe. Call it a natural law, if you like. (Note: Rambo movies excluded.)

Cain, the problem with your philosophy is that it rarely survives contact with the enemy. Percentage of people abandoning libertarianism after hitting hard times dwarfs deathbed conversions. It's a luxury of those born with a certain amount of privilege and whom have yet to be tripped up.

If you have a source to back that, I'd be interested to see it.

[Nessus]

Well, there's believing and supporting what they believe, then there's calling yourself a dirty fucking Nazi bastard. Labels are important.

This is the only story of mine whose moral I know. I don't think it's a marvellous moral, I simply
happen to know what it is: We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we
pretend to be.

My personal experience with Nazi monkey business was limited. There were some vile and lively
native American Fascists in my home town of Indianapolis during the thirties, and somebody slipped
me a copy of The Protocols of the Elders of Toon, I remember, which was supposed to be the Jews'
secret plan for taking over the world. And I remember some laughs about my aunt, too, who married
a German German, and who had to write to Indianapolis for proofs that she had no Jewish blood. The
Indianapolis mayor knew her from high school and dancing school, so he had fun putting ribbons and
official seals all over the documents the Germans required, which made them look like eighteenth-
century peace treaties.

After a while the war came, and I was in it, and I was captured, so I got to see a little of
Germany from the inside while the war was still going on. I was a private, a battalion scout, and,
under the terms of the Geneva Convention, I had to work for my keep, which was good, not bad I
didn't have to stay in prison all the time, somewhere out in the countryside. I got to go to a
city, which was Dresden, and to see the people and the things they did.

There were about a hundred of us in our particular work group, and we were put out as contract
labour to a factory that was making a vitamin-enriched malt syrup for pregnant women. It tasted
like thin honey laced with hickory smoke. It was good. I wish I had some right now. And the city
was lovely, highly ornamented, like Paris, and untouched by war. It was supposedly an "open" city,
not to be attacked since there were no troop concentrations or war industries there.

But high explosives were dropped on Dresden by American and British planes on the night of
February 13, 1945, just about twenty-one years ago, as I now write. There were no particular
targets for the bombs. The hope was that they would create a lot of kindling and drive firemen
underground.

And then hundreds of thousands of tiny incendiaries were scattered over the kindling, like seeds
on freshly turned loam. More bombs were dropped to keep firemen in their holes, and all the little
fires grew, joined one another, and became one apocalyptic flame. Hey presto: fire storm. It was
the largest massacre in European history, by the way. And so what?

We didn't get to see the fire storm. We were in a cool meat-locker under a slaughterhouse with our
six guards and ranks and ranks of dressed cadavers of cattle, pigs, horses, and sheep. We heard
the bombs walking around up there. Now and then there would be a gentle shower of calcimine. If we
had gone above to take a look, we would have been turned into artefacts
characteristic of fire storms: seeming pieces of charred firewood two or three feet long
ridiculously small human beings, or jumbo fried grasshoppers, if you will.

The malt syrup factory was gone. Everything was gone but the cellars where 135,000 Hansels and
Gretels had been baked like gingerbread men. So we were put to work as corpse miners, breaking
into shelters, bringing bodies out. And I got to see many German types of all ages as death had
found them, usually with valuables in their laps. Sometimes relatives would come to watch us dig.
They were interesting, too.

So much for Nazis and me.

If I'd been born in Germany, I suppose I would have been a Nazi, bopping Jews and gypsies and
Poles around, leaving boots sticking out of snowbanks, wanning myself with my secretly virtuous
insides. So it goes.

There's another clear moral to this tale, now that I think about it: When you're dead you're dead.
And yet another moral occurs to me now: Make love when you can. It's good for you.
Iowa City, 1966

[GGT]

I wonder what they attribute as the cause.

The United States tends to have more kids per couple then a lot of European countries. Risks for pregnancy go up after the first child which can skew it some. In addition the United States has a lot of illegal immigrants, are these factors in? There is a perverse incentive to quickly get pregnant and have an "anchor baby" in the United States.

I'm curious what the numbers are if they take out illegal immigrants, count only first child vs. first child as well as drop out all the voluntary self abusing potential mothers (ie crack heads) what the results would be.

Yeah, get right on that Mr. Insurance Man. It must be all those illegals and crack heads skewing the stats. Take them out of the formula and the US has the Best Healthcare system in the Wooorld.

[Flixy]

Hmmm, is there an extended option - say x days for fathers, but then they can take y days unpaid or use regular vacation time as well without it endangering anything about their jobs or promotions or chances for pay raises?

If you have vacation days left that shouldn't be a problem, I'd think.

Maybe if we dismiss the Netherland's breeding like rabbits Muslim population we'd be number one

Wasn't there recently a bit of a fuss about our baby mortality rates being a bit higher than they should?

By the way, Lewk, I thought pregnancy risks went up with age, not number of births, and we tend to have babies later

[']['ear]

I wonder what they attribute as the cause.

Lack of access to health care for 35% of the population? But don't let me stop you from making up half-assed excuses:

The United States tends to have more kids per couple then a lot of European countries. Risks for pregnancy go up after the first child which can skew it some.

Source? Because aside from age, I thought second pregnancies had fewer complications (there is the Rh compatibility issue, but that's not a problem if the mother has health care). That changes if an older woman has kids, but women in other developed countries are having children older, too.

Also, people who have more kids have them younger, which decreases risks. So, you were saying?

In addition the United States has a lot of illegal immigrants, are these factors in? There is a perverse incentive to quickly get pregnant and have an "anchor baby" in the United States.

Is the number of illegals that much greater in the US than elsewhere? No. And is the proportion anywhere near large enough to account for lower birth outcomes? No.

I'm curious what the numbers are if they take out illegal immigrants, count only first child vs. first child as well as drop out all the voluntary self abusing potential mothers (ie crack heads) what the results would be.

And these things don't happen in other developed countries?!?! What about that nation of sin, the Netherlands?

Yeah, because it can't be that socialist yuropean countries beat your shiny god blessed country right? There has to be a catch.

It's anchor babies, you see. Also known as "brown people."

[ar81]

Yeah, get right on that Mr. Insurance Man. It must be all those illegals and crack heads skewing the stats. Take them out of the formula and the US has the Best Healthcare system in the Wooorld.

The US healthcare system: best in the world or just the most expensive?
(Report prepared by Bureau of Labor Education. University of Maine. 2001)

It is the best system in the world... for those who want to suck dollars from American pockets under the argument "pay or die".

[earthJoker]

True and Europeans countries don't have illegal immigrants either

[Ziggy Stardust]

Maybe if we dismiss the Netherland's breeding like rabbits Muslim population we'd be number one

[GGT]

The "risks for pregnancy go up after the first child" is from Lewk's insurance=care world view.

The US has a crazy high rate of C-sections, something like 25-30% of all births. Largely due to insurance in the first place, whether physicians practice CYA liability medicine, or managed care insurance plans that contract with physicians.

[CitizenCain]

Well here's a pickle for the right-wingers. You can't exactly kill off a certain percentage of kiddy-winks before age 5 and hope that the ones you axed mostly comprised of the ones who'll grow up to be socialist mooching bastards instead of Semper Fi Chink-slayers. Or can you? I suppose time will tell!

(Hurf durf education and health care keep kiddies alive, whoda thunk it)

<shrug>

It's only really a consideration if you ignore basic natural laws and give a shit about the left side of the bell curve. Which, apparently, we are. Frankly, they really should just be grateful to be alive at all, considering how nature handles that side of the graph, but whatever. Yippie, democracy - where 10 mentally retarded wards of the state are worth tens times more than someone with a functional brain. Weeee!

[Nessus]

It really baffles me as to why you've yet to find the glories of National Socialism

[CitizenCain]

Because I don't give a shit about the strength of the group, obviously. I'm about individual rights - which means giving the "genetically inferior" and what not a chance to survive and make a life for themselves, even though the vast majority of them will fail.

I don't think tax dollars should go to pay for doing nature's job for it (weeding out the inferior individuals).

[']['ear]

Cain, the problem with your philosophy is that it rarely survives contact with the enemy. Percentage of people abandoning libertarianism after hitting hard times dwarfs deathbed conversions. It's a luxury of those born with a certain amount of privilege and whom have yet to be tripped up.

Witness the hordes of Republican voters who think that "small government" means that we should have good unemployment insurance and that Obama hasn't done enough to decrease unemployment. The hypocrisy is stiffling.

[CitizenCain]

Cain, the problem with your philosophy is that it rarely survives contact with the enemy. Percentage of people abandoning libertarianism after hitting hard times dwarfs deathbed conversions. It's a luxury of those born with a certain amount of privilege and whom have yet to be tripped up.

So your point is that politics is about self-interest, or that the vast majority of people are hypocrites? Got anything else from the "old as the hills" category you think we should be aware of?

Witness the hordes of Republican voters who think that "small government" means that we should have good unemployment insurance and that Obama hasn't done enough to decrease unemployment. The hypocrisy is stiffling.

Alternately, witness the hoards of anti-demonstrators who are nowhere to be seen now that it's a Democrat running the war. Just politics. Like practically every other issue, it's only bad when the other guy's doing it (or not doing it, as the case may be).

[Dreadnaught]

Yeah, because it can't be that socialist yuropean countries beat your shiny god blessed country right? There has to be a catch.

Yes, it's that in the US mothers actually have children at replacement level. Law of small numbers-ish.

[earthJoker]

Yes, it's that in the US mothers actually have actually have children at replacement level. Law of small numbers-ish.

I don't see that excuse as any less ridiculous than any of the arguments of Lewk. France seems to do well too.

[CitizenCain]

France seems to do well too.

Either that, or it has hundreds of patients dying because it gets hot in the summer.

[Nessus]

Yes, it's that in the US mothers actually have actually have children at replacement level. Law of small numbers-ish.

That's one hell of a derivative, son! And if the second child is the mother-killed, I must let the second child wash over me, etc., how come Ching-Ping China-Man with his one-kiddy-wink-policy isn't ahead of you?

[Hazir]

Yes, it's that in the US mothers actually have children at replacement level. Law of small numbers-ish.

Netherlands too AFAIK.

[Lewkowski]

Lack of access to health care for 35% of the population? But don't let me stop you from making up half-assed excuses:

35%? No way unless you are counting the illegals...

Source? Because aside from age, I thought second pregnancies had fewer complications (there is the Rh compatibility issue, but that's not a problem if the mother has health care). That changes if an older woman has kids, but women in other developed countries are having children older, too.

I think I may have been thinking of multiple births when what I read was talking multiple births at the same time. Like twins or octo-mom. That being said here are a couple of other items.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/changing-li...9914009&page=2

The popularity of scheduled C-sections has also been cited by public health experts as a possible cause for rising maternal mortality rates. The latest data from the CDC shows that 31 percent of the mothers now choose to have C-sections, up 50 percent since 1996. Studies have repeatedly shown a higher rate of mortality in mothers who have a C-section delivery, especially those who have multiple C-sections.

And in the same article another reason why it might be rising.... obesity. That is mostly a cultural thing and not about the quality of care of our health care system.

Doctors say it's hard to pinpoint exactly why the numbers are rising. Experts have cited the growing number of obese mothers as a big factor -- 20 percent of all pregnant women in the U.S. are now obese at the start of their pregnancy, according to the Centers for Disease Control. These women are more likely to have underlying health conditions, including diabetes or asthma, which can lead to pregnancy-related complications.

The article in California, one of the highest rates of illegal immigration didn't mention anything about it... guess it wasn't PC.

Is the number of illegals that much greater in the US than elsewhere? No. And is the proportion anywhere near large enough to account for lower birth outcomes? No.

I'm pretty sure there are more illegal in America then say... Canada.

And these things don't happen in other developed countries?!?! What about that nation of sin, the Netherlands?

I'd argue that having places where drugs are legal would cause FEWER deaths then in nations like America which outlaw everything.

It's anchor babies, you see. Also known as "brown people."

And there you have it folks, liberals can not resist playing the race card. Hey news flash its not the 1960's get over it.