Amusing headline of the day: Preemies don't make much money or have much sex

From FoxNews, of course. Very premature babies may have lower incomes, fewer sexual encounters than others.

I was full term, but had zip income and zero sexual encounters. But that’s just anecdotal.


Oh, surely you mean Faux News, of course. Wink wink.

What a lazy baby. Why, I know plenty of full term babies bringing home a nice salary for their dear old moms!

I know, but think about how the premature babies have even less!

Sucks to be you, QtM. This one time, when I was about 6 days old…well, I don’t want to kiss and tell, but to this day tales of my exploits are still whispered in the nursery.

So that doesn’t include sex between multiples in utero?

If you make an internet meme featuring a premature baby, is that a preemie meemie?

I really wonder about how the numbers are put together. Average earnings are 20,000 less, but they admit earlier on that 1 in 5 of the preemies have neurological impairments and 28% have disabilities. What does this really tell us?

People with disabilities make less money? That’s hardly news.

Even on the marriage stats… half were single compared to a third of the regular population. Well, remove 28% disabled from 50%, and you get 36%. So it looks to me like non-disabled preemies fair just as well as their counterparts there too.

People with disabilities less sexy! There’s another good headline.

They do quote the people who wrote the study as saying that the disabilities don’t fully explain the discrepancy, but I’d have to look at their original analysis to see what they’re talking about.

I blame modern medical technology.

Back in my day, if you were born six weeks premature, you were definitely fucked.


You know the meaning of the word MAY?

Abortion providers MAY be less likely to die on airplanes!
Bill Cosby MAY be dead in a few weeks
Rock stars MAY be more likely to have premature babies.
I MAY be punched out tomorrow by an irate customer.

In other words, MAY don’t mean shit.

It’s OK, Annie - the thread is about the badly-written headline, not about premature infants. Let me clear it up for you:

“Very premature babies may have lower incomes, fewer sexual encounters than others”

is the same sentence as

“Very premature babies may have lower incomes, fewer sexual encounters than other infants”

As infants, the general norm for income and sexual encounters is 0.

So how does that square with the conservative view that if you’re poor or in a shitty job, it’s your own damn fault?

Easy - fetuses are people with free will, therefore it was their choice to pop out early.

I’ll bet I can guess what it is. Micropreemies probably tend to do poorly in school, and get bullied, and have higher drop-out rates. The reason is that parents don’t wait to enroll them as though they’d been born on their due date, but enroll them according to their birthdate. For a baby born a month early, who weighed 5.5lbs, and went right home, it might not be a big deal, but for a baby who weighted 1.5lbs, spent 4 months in the NICU, and went home as a developmental newborn, even though legally it was four months old (and it may have gone home a month after its due date), starting school on its birthday means that essentially it is more than a year younger than the oldest kid in the class, and four months younger than the youngest kid in the class.

Some preemies are bright, and some get therapy to help them catch up-- also, depending when they are born, if it happens to be in February, say, it doesn’t effect they year they would enter school-- so not all of them suffer from starting too early, but I have been in and around education, and particularly special ed. long enough to see what happens to micropreemies. They nearly always end up with some kind of vague diagnosis of a learning disorder so they can be in Resource, and get extra time with assignments. The few I see who have wise parents who hold them back a year are just regular kids. They are not smaller and weaker than the other kids, and don’t get picked on, they are not immature, and are not sensitive to teasing, which is how bullying gets started sometimes (I’m not blaming the victim, but bullies know how to pick the vic, so to speak).

I remember a set of twins we had at the preschool where I worked when my son was there. They entered according to their birthday, even though they’d been two months premature, and in the NICU for longer than two months, and looked like little babies among these robust toddlers. They were immature, and got labeled as having behavior problems. They even seemed to have eating problems. They got held back a year, and suddenly, they fit right. All of a sudden, they had no behavior problems, because all their behavior was appropriate for their class level. Their eating problems went away, probably because they were under less stress, and eating better I’m sure made them feel better and helped them improve. They hadn’t been learning well, and the teachers were wondering if they maybe had dyslexia or ADD. After they were held back a year, they were suddenly soaking up information, because what was being presented was on their wavelength, I suspect, and also because of the reduced stress. They also made more friends. It was really amazing.

The twins parents had been skeptical, and were going t take them out of the preschool as soon as they were eligible for public school kindergarten, instead of putting them in our pre-K, but their behavior change was so amazing, that the parents decided to leave them with us another year, and let them start kindergarten at age 6. They had a summer birthday, so they would be the oldest kids, but not by much, since their birthday was only about three weeks before the cut-off date.

The problem is that all that straw keeps falling out of the sleeves.