Birth order

“Younger brother” redirects here. For other uses, see Younger brother (disambiguation).

Claims that birth order affects human psychology are prevalent in family literature, but studies find such effects to be vanishingly small.

Birth order refers to the order a child is born in their family; first-born and second-born are examples. Birth order is often believed to have a profound and lasting effect on psychological development. This assertion has been repeatedly challenged.[1] Recent research has consistently found that earlier born children score slightly higher on average on measures of intelligence, but has found zero, or almost zero, robust effect of birth order on personality.[2] Nevertheless, the notion that birth-order significantly influences personality continues to have a strong presence in pop psychology and popular culture.[3][4]


  • 1 Theory
  • 2 Personality
  • 3 Intelligence
  • 4 Sexual orientation
  • 5 See also
  • 6 References
  • 7 External links


Alfred Adler (1870–1937), an Austrian psychiatrist, and a contemporary of Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, was one of the first theorists to suggest that birth order influences personality. He argued that birth order can leave an indelible impression on an individual’s style of life, which is one’s habitual way of dealing with the tasks of friendship, love, and work. According to Adler, firstborns are “dethroned” when a second child comes along, and this may have a lasting influence on them, causing them to develop a Middle child syndrome. Younger and only children may be pampered and spoiled, which was suggested to affect their later personalities.[5]

Since Adler’s time, the influence of birth order on the development of personality has become a controversial issue in psychology. Among the general public, it is widely believed that personality is strongly influenced by birth order, but many psychologists dispute this. One modern theory of personality states that the Big Five personality traits of Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism represent most of the important elements of personality that can be measured. Contemporary empirical research shows that birth order does not influence the Big Five personality traits.[6]

In his book Born to Rebel, Frank Sulloway suggested that birth order had powerful effects on the Big Five personality traits. He argued that firstborns were much more conscientious and socially dominant, less agreeable, and less open to new ideas compared to laterborns.[7] However, critics such as Fred Townsend, Toni Falbo, and Judith Rich Harris, argue against Sulloway’s theories. A full issue of Politics and the Life Sciences, dated September, 2000 but not published until 2004[8] due to legal threats from Sulloway, contains carefully and rigorously researched criticisms of Sulloway’s theories and data. Subsequent large independent multi-cohort studies have revealed approximately zero-effect of birth order on personality.[9]

In their book Sibling Relationships: Their Nature and Significance across the Lifespan, Michael E. Lamb and Brian Sutton-Smith argue that as individuals continually adjust to competing demands of socialization agents and biological tendencies, any effects of birth order may be eliminated, reinforced, or altered by later experiences.[10]


The Marx Brothers.

Claims about birth order effects on personality have received much attention in scientific research, with the conclusion from the largest, best-designed research being that effects are zero [6] or near zero.[11] Such research is a challenge because of the difficulty of controlling all the variables that are statistically related to birth order. Family size, and a number of social and demographic variables are associated with birth order and serve as potential confounds. For example, large families are generally lower in socioeconomic status than small families. Hence third-born children are not only third in birth order, but they are also more likely to come from larger, poorer families than firstborn children. If third-born children have a particular trait, it may be due to birth order, or it may be due to family size, or to any number of other variables. Consequently, there are a large number of published studies on birth order that are confounded.

Literature reviews that have examined many studies and attempted to control for confounding variables tend to find minimal effects for birth order. Ernst and Angst reviewed all of the research published between 1946 and 1980. They also did their own study on a representative sample of 6,315 young men from Switzerland. They found no substantial effects of birth order and concluded that birth order research was a “waste of time.”[12] More recent research analyzed data from a national sample of 9,664 subjects on the Big Five personality traits of extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. Contrary to Sulloway’s predictions, they found no significant correlation between birth order and self-reported personality. There was, however, some tendency for people to perceive birth order effects when they were aware of the birth order of an individual.[13]

Smaller studies have partially supported Sulloway’s claims. Paulhus and colleagues reported that first borns scored higher on conservatism, conscientiousness and achievement orientation, and later borns higher on rebelliousness, openness, and agreeableness. The authors argued that the effect emerges most clearly from studies within families. Results are weak at best, when individuals from different families are compared. The reason is that genetic effects are stronger than birth order effects.[14] Recent studies also support the claim that only children are not markedly different from their peers with siblings. Scientists have found that they share many characteristics with firstborn children including being conscientious as well as parent-oriented.[15]

In her review of the research, Judith Rich Harris suggests that birth order effects may exist within the context of the family of origin, but that they are not enduring aspects of personality. When people are with their parents and siblings, firstborns behave differently from laterborns, even during adulthood. However, most people don’t spend their adult lives in their childhood home. Harris provides evidence that the patterns of behavior acquired in the childhood home don’t affect the way people behave outside the home, even during childhood. Harris concludes that birth order effects keep turning up because people keep looking for them, and keep analyzing and reanalyzing their data until they find them.[16]


Several studies have found that first borns have slightly higher IQ than later borns.[17][2] Such data are, however, confounded with family size,[11] which is in turn correlated with IQ confounds, such as social status.

Robert Zajonc argued for a “confluence” model in which the lack of siblings experienced by first borns exposes them to the more intellectual adult family environment. This predicts similar increases in IQ for siblings who next-oldest sibling is at least five years senior. These children are considered to be “functional firstborns”. The theory further predicts that firstborns will be more intelligent than only children, because the latter will not benefit from the “tutor effect” (i.e. teaching younger siblings).

In a metanalysis, Polit and Falbo (1988) found that firstborns, only children, and children with one sibling all score higher on tests of verbal ability than later-borns and children with multiple siblings.[18] This supports the conclusion that parents who have smaller families also have children with higher IQs. Resource dilution theory (RDT) suggests that siblings divert resources from each other. The metanalysis, however, found no such effect. Additional claims have been made, for instance that siblings compete for parental affection and other resources via academic achievement balancing out confluence effects.

Three siblings from the 1890s.

The claim that firstborns have higher IQ scores has been disputed. Data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth show no relationship between birth order and intelligence.[1] Likewise, data from the National Child Development Study in the United Kingdom has failed to support the hypothesis.[19]

Sexual orientation[edit]

The fraternal birth order effect is the name given to the theory that the more older brothers a man has, the greater the probability is that he will have a homosexual orientation. The fraternal birth order effect is said to be the strongest known predictor of sexual orientation, with each older brother increasing a man’s odds of being gay by approximately 33%.[20][21] (One of the largest studies to date, however, suggests a smaller effect, of 15% higher odds.[22][23]) Even so, the fraternal birth order effect only accounts for a maximum of one seventh of the prevalence of homosexuality in men. There seems to be no effect on sexual orientation in women, and no effect of the number of older sisters.

In Homosexuality, Birth Order, and Evolution: Toward an Equilibrium Reproductive Economics of Homosexuality, Edward M. Miller suggests that the birth order effect on homosexuality may be a by-product of an evolved mechanism that shifts personality away from heterosexuality in laterborn sons.[24] According to Miller, this would have the consequence of reducing the probability of these sons engaging in unproductive competition with each other. Evolution may have favored biological mechanisms prompting human parents to exert affirmative pressure toward heterosexual behavior in earlier-born children: As more children in a family survive infancy and early childhood, the continued existence of the parents’ gene line becomes more assured (cf. the pressure on newly-wed European aristocrats, especially young brides, to produce “an heir and a spare”), and the benefits of encouraging heterosexuality weigh less strongly against the risk of psychological damage that a strongly heteronormative environment poses to a child predisposed toward homosexuality.

More recently, this birth order effect on sexuality in males has been attributed to a very specific biological occurrence. As the mother gives birth to more sons, she is thought to develop an immunity to certain male-specific antigens. This immunity then leads to an effect in the brain that has to do with sexual preference. Yet this biological effect is seen only in right-handed males. If not right-handed, the number of older brothers has been found to have no prediction on the sexuality of a younger brother. This has led researchers to consider if the genes for sexuality and handedness are somehow related.[25]

Not all studies, including some with large, nationally representative samples, have been able to replicate the fraternal birth order effect. Some did not find any statistically significant difference in the sibling composition of gay and straight men;[26][27] this includes the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health,[28] the largest U.S. study with relevant data on the subject. Furthermore, at least one study, on the familial correlates of joining a same-sex union or marriage in a sample of two million people in Denmark, found that the only sibling correlate of joining a same-sex union among men was having older sisters, not older brothers.[29]

See also[edit]

  • Adlerian
  • Family
  • Firstborn (Judaism)
  • Individual psychology
  • Only child
  • Primogeniture
  • Sibling rivalry
  • The Birth Order Book


  • ^ a b Rodgers, JL; Cleveland, HH; Van Den Oord, E; Rowe, DC (2000). “Resolving the debate over birth order, family size, and intelligence”. The American Psychologist. 55 (6): 599–612. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.6.599. PMID 10892201. 
  • ^ a b Rohrer, Julia M.; Egloff, Boris; Schmukle, Stefan C. (2015-11-17). “Examining the effects of birth order on personality”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 112 (46): 14224–14229. doi:10.1073/pnas.1506451112. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 4655522 . PMID 26483461. 
  • ^ Isaacson, Clifford E (2002). The Birth Order Effect: How to Better Understand Yourself and Others. Adams Media Corporation. ISBN 1580625517. 
  • ^ Bradshaw, John (1996). The Family: A New Way of Creating Solid Self-esteem. Health Communications. pp. 36–37. ISBN 1558744274. 
  • ^ Adler, A. (1964). Problems of neurosis. New York: Harper and Row.
  • ^ a b Rohrer, Julia M.; Egloff, Boris; Schmukle, Stefan C. (2015-10-19). “Examining the effects of birth order on personality”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 112 (46): 201506451. doi:10.1073/pnas.1506451112. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 4655522 . PMID 26483461. 
  • ^ Sulloway, F.J. (2001). Birth Order, Sibling Competition, and Human Behavior. In Paul S. Davies and Harmon R. Holcomb, (Eds.), Conceptual Challenges in Evolutionary Psychology: Innovative Research Strategies. Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 39-83. “Full text” (PDF).  (325 KB)
  • ^ Harris, Judith Rich (2006), No Two Alike: Human Nature and Human Individuality (pp. 107-112)
  • ^ Rohrer, Julia M.; Egloff, Boris; Schmukle, Stefan C. (2015-11-17). “Examining the effects of birth order on personality”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 112 (46): 14224–14229. doi:10.1073/pnas.1506451112. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 4655522 . PMID 26483461. 
  • ^ Lamb, M. E., Sutton-Smith, B. (1982).Sibling Relationships: Their Nature and Significance of the Lifespan. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • ^ a b Damian, Rodica Ioana; Roberts, Brent W. (2015-11-17). “Settling the debate on birth order and personality”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 112 (46): 14119–14120. doi:10.1073/pnas.1519064112. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 4655556 . PMID 26518507. 
  • ^ Ernst, C. & Angst, J. (1983). Birth order: Its influence on personality. Springer.
  • ^ Jefferson T.; Herbst J. H.; McCrae R. R. (1998). “Associations between birth order and personality traits: Evidence from self-reports and observer ratings”. Journal of Research in Personality. 32 (4): 498–509. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1998.2233. 
  • ^ Paulhus D.L.; Trapnell P.D.; Chen D. (1998). “Birth order effects on personality and achievement within families”. Psychological Science. 10 (6): 482–488. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00193. JSTOR 40063474. 
  • ^ van der Leun, Justine (October 2009). “Does Birth Order Really Matter?”. AOL Health. Retrieved October 2009.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  • ^ Harris, J. R. (1998). The Nurture Assumption: Why children turn out the way they do. New York: Free Press.
  • ^ Belmont, M.; Marolla, F.A. (1973). “Birth order, family size, and intelligence”. Science. 182 (4117): 1096–1101. doi:10.1126/science.182.4117.1096. PMID 4750607. 
  • ^ Polit D. F.; Falbo T. (1988). “The intellectual achievement of only children”. Journal of Biosocial Science. 20 (3): 275–285. doi:10.1017/S0021932000006611. PMID 3063715. 
  • ^ Satoshi Kanazawa (2012). “Intelligence, Birth Order, and Family Size”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 38 (9): 1157–64. doi:10.1177/0146167212445911. 
  • ^ Blanchard R (2001). “Fraternal birth order and the maternal immune hypothesis of male homosexuality”. Hormones and Behavior. 40 (2): 105–114. doi:10.1006/hbeh.2001.1681. PMID 11534970. 
  • ^ Puts, D. A.; Jordan, C. L.; Breedlove, S. M. (2006). “O brother, where art thou? The fraternal birth-order effect on male sexual orientation” (PDF). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 103 (28): 10531–10532. doi:10.1073/pnas.0604102103. PMC 1502267 . PMID 16815969. 
  • ^ Ray Blanchard; Richard Lippa (2007). “Birth Order, Sibling Sex Ratio, Handedness, and Sexual Orientation of Male and Female Participants in a BBC Internet Research Project”. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 36 (2): 163–76. doi:10.1007/s10508-006-9159-7. PMID 17345165. 
  • ^ “BBC – Science & Nature – Sex ID – Study Results”. 
  • ^ Miller EM (2000). “Homosexuality, Birth Order, and Evolution: Toward an Equilibrium Reproductive Economics of Homosexuality”. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 29 (1): 1–34. doi:10.1023/A:1001836320541. PMID 10763427. 
  • ^ Blanchard, Ray. “Review and theory of handedness, birth order, and homosexuality in men.” Laterality, 2008, p. 51-70.
  • ^ B. P. Zietsch; et al. (2012). “Do shared etiological factors contribute to the relationship between sexual orientation and depression?”. Psychological Medicine. 42: 521–532. doi:10.1017/S0033291711001577. PMC 3594769 . PMID 21867592. 
  • ^ Mariana Kishida; Qazi Rahman (2015). “Fraternal Birth Order and Extreme Right-Handedness as Predictors of Sexual Orientation and Gender Nonconformity in Men”. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 44: 1493–1501. doi:10.1007/s10508-014-0474-0. 
  • ^ Francis AM (2008). “Family and sexual orientation: the family-demographic correlates of homosexuality in men and women”. J. Sex Res. 45 (4): 371–7. doi:10.1080/00224490802398357. 
  • ^ Frisch M; Hviid A (2006). “Childhood family correlates of heterosexual and homosexual marriages: a national cohort study of two million Danes”. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 35 (5): 533–47. doi:10.1007/s10508-006-9062-2. PMID 17039403. 
  • External links[edit]

    • Birth order and intelligence
    • Birth order and personality
    • CNN article
    • The Independent article
    • Time article
    • USA Today article on CEOs

    Psdvanity Birth

    Psdvanity Birth

    happy birth

    AYYYYYY it’s len’en’s fourth anniversary this took too long to draw haha i wish i could’ve known about len’en earlier so i could’ve drawn something for it last year but…ew…old art… i own nothing but the art

    .:Mama Birth:.

    Best title at 2am ITS purrwitch ‘s birthday! This woman,,THIS WOMAN RIGHT HERE She protecc and luvs and is just a truly amazing person all around. An amazing n mum friend, fun to call with and kick their ass in Cards Against Humanity chokes But seriously, hap…

    Vayne’s Birth

    The tragedy that created Vayne, the nocturnal hunter.

    Nyxie’s Birth~

    The baby was a tiny golden-furred lombax with little orange-coloured stripes on his ears and a little tuft of pale ginger hair. “Oh, Ratchet… he’s perfect.” “He sure is…” After seeing an adorable anime family picture on Google, I felt like redrawing it in…

    Breech birth

    For other uses, see Breech (disambiguation).

    (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

    A breech birth occurs when a baby is born bottom first instead of head first. Around 3-5% of pregnant women at term (37–40 weeks pregnant) will have a breech baby.[1]

    Most babies in the breech position are born by a caesarean section because it is seen as safer than being born vaginally.[1]

    As most breech babies are delivered by caesarean section in developed countries, doctors and midwives may lose the skills required to safely assist women giving birth to a breech baby vaginally.[1] Delivering all breech babies by caesarean section in developing countries may be very difficult to implement or even impossible as there are not always resources available to provide this service.[2]


    • 1 Cause
      • 1.1 Rates in various medical conditions
    • 2 Types
    • 3 Risks
      • 3.1 Factors influencing the safety
    • 4 Management
      • 4.1 Cesarean or vaginal delivery
    • 5 Twin breech
      • 5.1 Turning the baby
    • 6 People born breech
    • 7 See also
    • 8 References
    • 9 External links


    With regard to the fetal presentation during human gestation, three periods have been distinguished.

    During the first period, which lasts until the 24th gestational week, the incidence of a longitudinal lie increases, with equal proportions of breech or cephalic presentations from this lie. This period is characterized by frequent changes of presentations. The fetuses in breech presentation during this period have the same probability for breech and cephalic presentation at delivery.

    During the second period, lasting from the 25th to the 35th gestational week, the incidence of cephalic presentation increases, with a proportional decrease of breech presentation. The second period is characterized by a higher than random probability that the fetal presentation during this period will also be present at the time of delivery. The increase of this probability is gradual and identical for breech and cephalic presentations during this period.

    In the third period, from the 36th gestational week onward, the incidence of cephalic and breech presentations remain stable, i.e. breech presentation around 3-4% and cephalic presentation approximately 95%. In the general population, incidence of breech presentation at preterm corresponds to the incidence of breech presentation when birth occurs.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

    A breech presentation at delivery occurs when the fetus does not turn to a cephalic presentation. This failure to change presentation can result from endogenous and exogenous factors. Endogenous factors involve fetal inability to adequately move, whereas exogenous factors refer to insufficient intrauterine space available for fetal movements.[10]

    Incidence of breech presentation among diseases and medical conditions with the incidence of breech presentation higher than occurs in the general population, shows that the probability of breech presentation is between 4% and 50%. These data are related to: 1. single series of medical entities; 2. collections of series for some particular medical entity; 3. data obtained from repeated observations under the same conditions; 4. series of two concomitant medical conditions.

    Rates in various medical conditions[edit]

    Fetal entities: First twin 17-30%; Second twin 28-39%; Stillborn 26%; Prader-Willi syndrome 50%, Werdnig-Hoffman syndrome 10%; Smith-Lemli-Opitz syndrome 40%; Fetal alcohol syndrome 40%; Potter anomaly 36%; Zellweger syndrome 27%; Myotonic dystrophy 21%, 13 trisomy syndrome 12%; 18 trisomy syndrome 43%; 21 trisomy syndrome 5%; de Lange syndrome 10%; Anencephalus 6-18%, Spina bifida 20-30%; Congenital Hydrocephalus 24-37%; Osteogenesis imperfecta 33.3%; Amyoplasia 33.3%; Achondrogenesis 33.3%; Amelia 50%; Craniosynostosis 8%; Sacral agenesis 30.4%; Arthrogriposis multiplex congenita 33.3; Congenital dislocation of the hip 33.3%; Hereditary sensory neuropathy type III 25%; Centronuclear myoptathy 16.7%; Multiple pituitary hormone deficiency 50%; Isolated pituitary hormone deficiency 20%; Ectopic posterior pituitary gland 33.3%; Congenital bilateral perisilvian syndrome 33.3; Symmetric fetal growth restriction 40%; Asymmetric fetal growth restriction 40%; Nonimmune hydrops fetalis 15%; Atresio ani 18.2%; Microcephalus 15.4%; Omphalocele 12.5%; Prematurity 40%

    Placental and amniotic fluid entities: Amniotic sheet perpendicular to the placenta 50%; Cornual-fundal implantation of the placenta 30%; Placenta previa 12.5%; Oligohydramnios 17%; Polyhydramnios 15.8%

    Maternal entities: Uterus arcuatus 22.6%; Uterus unicornuatus 33.3%; Uterus bicornuatus 34.8%; Uterus didelphys 30-41%; Uterus septus 45.8%; Leimyoma uteri 9-20%; Spinal cord injury 10%; Carriers of Duchenne muscular dystrophy 17%

    Combination of two medical entities: First twin in uterus with two bodies 14.29%; Second twin in uterus with two bodies 18.52%.[11][12]

    Also, women with previous Caesarean deliveries have a risk of breech presentation at term twice that of women with previous vaginal deliveries.[13]

    The highest possible probability of breech presentation of 50% indicates that breech presentation is a consequence of random filling of the intrauterine space, with the same probability of breech and cephalic presentation in a longitudinally elongated uterus.[14]


    Types of breech depend on how the baby’s legs are lying.

    • A frank breech (otherwise known as an extended breech) is where the baby’s legs are up next to its abdomen, with its knees straight and its feet next to its ears. This is the most common type of breech.
    • A complete breech (flexed) breech is when the baby appears as though it is sitting crossed-legged with its legs bent at the hips and knees.
    • A footling breech is when one or both of the baby’s feet are born first instead of the pelvis. This is more common in babies born prematurely or before their due date.[15]

    In addition to the above, breech births in which the sacrum is the fetal denominator can be classified by the position of a fetus.[16] Thus sacro-anterior, sacro-transverse and sacro-posterior positions all exist, but left sacro-anterior is the most common presentation.[16] Sacro-anterior indicates an easier delivery compared to other forms.


    Umbilical cord prolapse may occur, particularly in the complete, footling, or kneeling breech.[17] This is caused by the lowermost parts of the baby not completely filling the space of the dilated cervix.[17] When the waters break the amniotic sac, it is possible for the umbilical cord to drop down and become compressed.[17] This complication severely diminishes oxygen flow to the baby and the baby must be delivered immediately (usually by Caesarean section[18]) so that he or she can breathe. If there is a delay in delivery, the brain can be damaged. Among full-term, head-down babies, cord prolapse is quite rare, occurring in 0.4 percent. Among frank breech babies the incidence is 0.5 percent,[17] among complete breeches 5 percent,[17] and among footling breeches 15 percent.[17]

    Head entrapment is caused by the failure of the fetal head to negotiate the maternal midpelvis. At full term, the fetal bitrochanteric diameter (the distance between the outer points of the hips) is about the same as the biparietal diameter (the transverse diameter of the skull)—simply put the size of the hips are the same as the size of the head. The relatively larger buttocks dilate the cervix as effectively as the head does in the typical head-down presentation. In contrast, the relative head size of a preterm baby is greater than the fetal buttocks. If the baby is preterm, it may be possible for the baby’s body to emerge while the cervix has not dilated enough for the head to emerge.

    Because the umbilical cord—the baby’s oxygen supply—is significantly compressed while the head is in the pelvis during a breech birth, it is important that the delivery of the aftercoming fetal head not be delayed. If the arm is extended alongside the head, delivery will not occur. If this occurs, the Løvset manoeuvre may be employed, or the arm may be manually brought to a position in front of the chest.[19] The Løvset manoeuvre involves rotating the fetal body by holding the fetal pelvis. Twisting the body such that an arm trails behind the shoulder, it will tend to cross down over the face to a position where it can be reached by the obstetrician’s finger, and brought to a position below the head. A similar rotation in the opposite direction is made to deliver the other arm. In order to present the smallest diameter (9.5 cm) to the pelvis, the baby’s head must be flexed (chin to chest). If the head is in a deflexed position, the risk of entrapment is increased. Uterine contractions and maternal muscle tone encourage the head to flex.

    Oxygen deprivation may occur from either cord prolapse or prolonged compression of the cord during birth, as in head entrapment. If oxygen deprivation is prolonged, it may cause permanent neurological damage (for instance, cerebral palsy) or death. It has been suggested that a fast vaginal delivery would mean the risk of stopping baby’s oxygen supply is reduced. However, there is not enough research to show this and a quick delivery might cause more harm to the baby than a conservative approach to the birth.[20]

    Injury to the brain and skull may occur due to the rapid passage of the baby’s head through the mother’s pelvis. This causes rapid decompression of the baby’s head. In contrast, a baby going through labor in the head-down position usually experiences gradual molding (temporary reshaping of the skull) over the course of a few hours. This sudden compression and decompression in breech birth may cause no problems at all, but it can injure the brain. This injury is more likely in preterm babies. The fetal head may be controlled by a special two-handed grip call the Mariceau-Smellie-Veit manoeuvre or the elective application of forceps. This will be of value in controlling the rate of delivery of the head and reduce decompression. Related to potential head trauma, researchers have identified a relationship between breech birth and autism.[21]

    Squeezing the baby’s abdomen can damage internal organs. Positioning the baby incorrectly while using forceps to deliver the after coming head can damage the spine or spinal cord. It is important for the birth attendant to be knowledgeable, skilled, and experienced with all variations of breech birth.

    Factors influencing the safety[edit]

    • Birth attendant’s skill (and experience with breech birth) – The skill of the doctor or midwife and the number of breech births previously assisted is of crucial importance. Many of the dangers in vaginal birth for breech babies come from mistakes made by birth attendants. With the majority of breech babies being delivered by cesarean section there is more risk that birth attendants will lose their skills in delivering breech babies and therefore increase the risk of harm to the baby during a vaginal delivery.[1][22]
    • Type of breech presentation – the frank breech has the most favorable outcomes in vaginal birth, with many studies suggesting no difference in outcome compared to head down babies.[23] (Some studies, however, find that planned caesarean sections for all breech babies improve outcome. The difference may rest in part on the skill of the doctors who delivered babies in different studies.) Complete breech presentation is the next most favorable position, but these babies sometimes shift and become footling breeches during labour. Footling and kneeling breeches have a higher risk of cord prolapse and head entrapment.[22]
    • Parity – Parity refers to the number of times a woman has given birth before. If a woman has given birth vaginally, her pelvis has “proven” it is big enough to allow a baby of that baby’s size to pass through it. However, a head-down baby’s head often molds (shifts its shape to fit the maternal pelvis) and so may present a smaller diameter than the same-size baby born breech. Research on the issue has been contradictory as far as whether vaginal breech birth is safer when the mother has given birth before, or not.
    • Fetal size in relation to maternal pelvic size – If the mother’s pelvis is roomy and the baby is not large, this is favorable for vaginal breech delivery. However, prenatal estimates of the size of the baby and the size of the pelvis are unreliable.[22]
    • Hyperextension of the fetal head – this can be evaluated with ultrasound. Less than 5% of breech babies have their heads in the “star-gazing” position, face looking straight upwards and the back of the head resting against the back of the neck. Caesarean delivery is absolutely necessary, because vaginal birth with the baby’s head in this position confers a high risk of spinal cord trauma and death.[22]
    • Maturity of the baby – Premature babies appear to be at higher risk of complications if delivered vaginally than if delivered by caesarean section.[22]
    • Progress of labor – A spontaneous, normally progressing, straightforward labor requiring no intervention is a favorable sign.[22]
    • Second twins – If a first twin is born head down and the second twin is breech, the chances are good that the second twin can have a safe breech birth.[24]


    Breech birth position seen at MRI.

    As in labour with a baby in a normal head-down position, uterine contractions typically occur at regular intervals and gradually the cervix begins to thin and open.[25] In the more common breech presentations, the baby’s bottom (rather than feet or knees) is what is first to descend through the maternal pelvis and emerge from the vagina.[17]

    At the beginning of labour, the baby is generally in an oblique position, facing either the right or left side of the mother’s back. The baby’s bottom is the same size in the term baby as the baby’s head. Descent is thus as for the presenting fetal head and delay in descent is a cardinal sign of possible problems with the delivery of the head.

    In order to begin the birth, descent of podalic pole along with compaction and internal rotation needs to occur. This happens when the mother’s pelvic floor muscles cause the baby to turn so that it can be born with one hip directly in front of the other. At this point the baby is facing one of the mother’s inner thighs. Then, the shoulders follow the same path as the hips did. At this time the baby usually turns to face the mother’s back. Next occurs external rotation, which is when the shoulders emerge as the baby’s head enters the maternal pelvis. The combination of maternal muscle tone and uterine contractions cause the baby’s head to flex, chin to chest. Then the back of the baby’s head emerges and finally the face.

    Due to the increased pressure during labour and birth, it is normal for the baby’s leading hip to be bruised and genitalia to be swollen. Babies who assumed the frank breech position in utero may continue to hold their legs in this position for some days after birth.[26]

    Cesarean or vaginal delivery[edit]

    When a baby is born bottom first there is more risk that the birth will not be straight forward and that the baby could be harmed.[27] For example, when the baby’s head passes through the mother’s pelvis the umbilical cord can be compressed which prevents delivery of oxygenated blood to the baby. Due to this and other risks, babies in breech position are usually born by a planned caesarean section in developed countries.[1]

    Caesarean section reduces the risk of harm or death for the baby but does increase risk of harm to the mother compared with a vaginal delivery.[1] It is best if the baby is in a head down position so that they can be born vaginally with less risk of harm to both mother and baby. The next section is looking at External cephalic version or ECV which is a method that can help the baby turn from a breech position to a head down position.

    Vaginal birth of a breech baby has its risks but caesarean sections are not always available or possible, a mother might arrive in hospital at a late stage of her labour or may choose not to have a caesarean section. In these cases, it is important that the clinical skills needed to deliver breech babies are not lost so that mothers and babies are as safe as possible.[1] Compared with developed countries, planned caesarean sections have not produced as good results in developing countries – it is suggested that this is due to more breech vaginal deliveries being performed by experienced, skilled practitioners in these settings.[2]

    Twin breech[edit]

    Twin Breech (vertex and non-vertex twins) [28]

    In twin pregnancies, it is very common for one or both babies to be in the breech position. Most often twin babies do not have the chance to turn around because they are born prematurely. If both babies are in the breech position and the mother has gone into labour early, a cesarean section may be the best option. About 30-40% of twin pregnancies result in only one baby being in the breech position. If this is the case, the babies can be born vaginally.[29] After the first baby who is not in the breech position is delivered, the baby who is presented in the breech position may turn itself around, if this does not happen another procedure may performed called the breech extraction. The breech extraction is the procedure that involves the obstetrician grabbing the second twin’s feet and pulling him/her into the birth canal. This will help with delivering the second twin vaginally.[29] However, if the second twin is larger than the first, complications with delivering the second twin vaginally may arise and a cesarean section should be performed. At times, the first twin (the twin closest to the birth canal) can be in the breech position with the second twin being in the cephalic position (vertical). When this occurs, risks of complications are higher than normal. In particular, a serious complication known as Locked twins. This is when both babies interlock their chins during labour. When this happens a cesarean section should be performed immediately.

    Turning the baby[edit]

    Turning the baby, technically known as external cephalic version (ECV), is when the baby is turned by gently pressing the mother’s abdomen to push the baby from a bottom first position, to a head first position.[27] ECV does not always work, but it does improve the mother’s chances of giving birth to her baby vaginally and avoiding a cesarean section. The World Health Organisation recommends that women should have a planned cesarean section only if an ECV has been tried and did not work.[2]

    Women who have an ECV when they are 36–40 weeks pregnant are more likely to have a vaginal delivery and less likely to have a cesarean section than those who do not have an ECV.[20] Turning the baby before this time makes a head first birth more likely but ECV before the due date can increase the risk of early or premature birth which can cause problems to the baby.[27]

    There are treatments that can be used which might affect the success of an ECV. Drugs called beta-stimulant tocolytics help the woman’s muscles to relax so that the pressure during the ECV does not have to be so great. Giving the woman these drugs before the ECV improves the chances of her having a vaginal delivery because the baby is more likely to turn and stay head down.[30] Other treatments such as using sound, pain relief drugs such as epidural, increasing the fluid around the baby and increasing the amount of fluids to the woman before the ECV could all effect its success but there is not enough research to make this clear.[31]

    Turning techniques mothers can do at home are referred to Spontaneous Cephalic Version (SCV), this is when the baby can turn without any medical assistance.[32] Some of these techniques include; a knee to chest position, the breech tilt and moxibustion, these can be performed after the mother is 34 weeks pregnant. Although there is not a lot of evidence to support how well these techniques work, it has worked for some mothers.[32]

    People born breech[edit]

    • Chesa Boudin[33]
    • Jordan Brady[34]
    • Becky Garrison[35]
    • Billy Joel[36]
    • Jerry Lee Lewis[37]
    • Bret Michaels[38]
    • Nero[39]
    • Tatum O’Neal[40]
    • David Shields[41]
    • Frank Sinatra[42]
    • Wilhelm II, German Emperor[43]
    • Pedro Zamora[44]
    • Frank Zappa[45]

    See also[edit]

    • Asynclitic birth, another abnormal birth position


  • ^ a b c d e f g Hofmeyr, GJ; Hannah, M; Lawrie, TA (21 July 2015). “Planned caesarean section for term breech delivery”. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 7: CD000166. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000166.pub2. PMID 26196961. 
  • ^ a b c Conde-Agudelo, A. “Planned caesarean section for term breech delivery: RHL commentary (last revised: 8 September 2003)”. The WHO Reproductive Health Library. Geneva: World Health Organization. Retrieved 19 February 2016. 
  • ^ Miller EC, Kouam L (1981). “Frequency of breech presentation during pregnancy and on full term”. Zentralbl Gynakol. 103: 105–109. 
  • ^ Hill L (2008). “Prevalence of Breech Presentation by Gestational Age”. American Journal of Perinatology. 7: 92–93. doi:10.1055/s-2007-999455. PMID 2403797. 
  • ^ Hughey MJ (1985). “Fetal position during pregnancy”. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 153: 885–886. doi:10.1016/s0002-9378(85)80276-3. 
  • ^ Sørensen, T; Hasch, E; Lange, AP (1979). “Fetal presentation during pregnancy”. Lancet. 2: 477. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(79)91536-8. 
  • ^ Tadmor OP, Rabinowitz R, Alon L, Mostoslavky V, Aboulafia Y. Can breech presentation at birth be predicted from ultrasound examination during the second or third trimester?” Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1994;46:11–14.
  • ^ Boos, R; Hendrik, HJ; Schmidt, W (1987). “Behavior of fetal position in the second half of pregnancy in labor with breech and vertex presentations”. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 47: 341–345. 
  • ^ Witkop, CT; Zhang, J; Sun, W; Troendle, J (2008). “Natural history of fetal position during pregnancy and risk of nonvertex delivery”. Obstet Gynecol. 111: 875–880. doi:10.1097/aog.0b013e318168576d. PMID 18378746. 
  • ^ Sekulić S, Zarkov M, Slankamenac P, Bozić K, Vejnović T, Novakov-Mikić A (2009). “Decreased expression of the righting reflex and locomotor movements in breech-presenting newborns in the first days of life”. Early Hum Dev. 85: 263–6. doi:10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2008.11.001. 
  • ^ Braun FH, Jones KL, Smith DW (1975). “Breech presentation as an indicator of fetal abnormality”. J Pediatr. 86: 419–21. doi:10.1016/s0022-3476(75)80977-2. 
  • ^ Sekulić SR, Mikov A, Petrović DS (2010). “Probability of breech presentation and its significance”. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 23 (10): 1160–4. doi:10.3109/14767051003677996. 
  • ^ Vendittelli, F., Rivière, O., Crenn-Hébert, C., Rozan, M. A., Maria, B., Jacquetin, B. (May 2008) “Is a breech presentation at term more frequent in women with a history of cesarean delivery?” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 198 (5): 521.e1–6. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2007.11.009. PMID 18241817
  • ^ Sekulić SR, Petrović DS, Runić R, Williams M, Vejnović TR. Does a probability of breech presentation of more than 50% exist among diseases and medical conditions? Twin Res Hum Genet. 2007; 10:649-54.
  • ^ Tidy, C. “Breech Presentations (last revised 11/03/2013)”. Retrieved 2 March 2016. 
  • ^ a b Konar, Hiralal (2014). Dc dutta’s textbook of obstetrics (7th ed.). [S.l.]: Mcgraw-Hill. p. 376. ISBN 978-93-5152-067-2. 
  • ^ a b c d e f g Payne, J. “Prolapsed Cord. Pregnancy complications from prolapsed cord”. Patient info. Retrieved 22 April 2016. 
  • ^ “Umbilical Cord Prolapse” (PDF). Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. November 2014. Retrieved 22 April 2016. 
  • ^ Tidy, C. “Breech Presentations”. Patient. Retrieved 22 April 2016. 
  • ^ a b Hofmeyr, GJ; Kulier, R; West, HM (21 July 2015). “Expedited versus conservative approaches for vaginal delivery in breech presentation”. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 7: CD000082. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000082.pub3. PMID 26197303. 
  • ^ Deborah Bilder, MD, Judith Pinborough-Zimmerman, PhD, Judith Miller, PhD and William McMahon, MD. “Prenatal, Perinatal, and Neonatal Factors Associated With Autism Spectrum Disorders.” Pediatrics 123(5), May 2009, pp. 1293–1300
  • ^ a b c d e f Kotaska, A; Menticoglou, S; Gagnon, R; Farine, D; Basso, M; Bos, H; Delisle, MF; Grabowska, K; Hudon, L; Mundle, W; Murphy-Kaulbeck, L; Ouellet, A; Pressey, T; Roggensack, A; Maternal Fetal Medicine, Committee; Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of, Canada (June 2009). “Vaginal delivery of breech presentation”. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada. 31 (6): 557–66, 567–78. PMID 19646324. 
  • ^ Datta, Sanjay (2004-01-09). Anesthetic and Obstetric Management of High-Risk Pregnancy. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 9780387004433. 
  • ^ Kotaska A, Menticoglou S,Farine D, et al. “Vaginal delivery of breech presentation” J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2009 Jun;31(6):557-66, 567-78. (Ref is for entire section)
  • ^ “First stage”. StratOG. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. 2016. Retrieved 22 April 2016. 
  • ^ McClain, L (2016). “Will my newborn be different? – Better Birth Blog”. Better Birth Blog. Retrieved 18 March 2016. 
  • ^ a b c Hutton, EK; Hofmeyr, GJ; Dowswell, T (29 July 2015). “External cephalic version for breech presentation before term”. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 7: CD000084. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000084.pub3. PMID 26222245. 
  • ^ “Twin Breech”. 
  • ^ a b “Delivery of Breech Second Twin”. Healthline. Retrieved 2016-05-17. 
  • ^ Cluver, C; Gyte, GM; Sinclair, M; Dowswell, T; Hofmeyr, GJ (9 February 2015). “Interventions for helping to turn term breech babies to head first presentation when using external cephalic version”. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2: CD000184. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000184.pub4. PMC 4171393 . PMID 25674710. 
  • ^ Cluver, C; Gyte, GM; Sinclair, M; Dowswell, T; Hofmeyr, GJ (9 February 2015). “Interventions for helping to turn term breech babies to head first presentation when using external cephalic version”. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2: CD000184. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000184.pub4. PMC 4171393 . PMID 25674710. 
  • ^ a b “How can I turn my breech baby naturally?”. BabyCentre. Retrieved 2016-05-16. 
  • ^ Wilgoren, Jodi (9 December 2002). “From a Radical Background, A Rhodes Scholar Emerges”. New York Times. Retrieved 3 February 2015. 
  • ^ “‘I Am Comic’ Director Jordan Brady on Spit Takes and the Downside of Supportive Audiences”. Interview. The Humor Code. Retrieved 2 February 2015. 
  • ^ Garrison, Becky (1 Jan 2008). The New Atheist Crusaders and Their Unholy Grail: The Misguided Quest to Destroy Your Faith. Thomas Nelson Inc. p. 133. 
  • ^ Andrew Goldman (26 May 2013). “Billy Joel on not working, not giving up drinking and not caring what Elton John says about any of it”. New York Times Magazine. p. 34. Retrieved 2 February 2015.  Joel attributes the need for double hip replacement surgery to “probably being born with dysplasia.” He explains that he was a breech baby and that forceps may have displaced his hips.
  • ^ McKennain, Mike (26 February 2010). “Great balls of wax”. Retrieved 3 February 2015.  Allegedly said, “I was born feet first, and I’ve been jumpin’ ever since.”
  • ^ Ellis, Christine (15 April 2012). “Music for your soul”. His website. Bret Michaels. Retrieved 3 February 2015. 
  • ^ Geffcken, Katherine A.; Dickison, Sheila Kathryn; Hallett, Judith P. (2000). Rome and Her Monuments: Essays on the City and Literature of Rome in Honor of Katherine A. Geffcken. Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers. p. 496. 
  • ^ O’Neal, Tatum (4 Oct 2005). A Paper Life. HarperCollins. p. 14. 
  • ^ Shields, David (2009). The Thing about Life Is That One Day You’ll Be Dead. Random House LLC. p. 4. 
  • ^ Santopietro, Tom (10 Nov 2009). Sinatra in Hollywood. Macmillan. p. 12. 
  • ^ Putnam, William L. (2001). The Kaiser’s merchant ships in World War I. p. 33. 
  • ^ Winick, Judd (2000). Pedro and Me: Friendship, Loss, and What I Learned. Henry Holt & Co. pp. 33-36.
  • ^ Miles, Barry (2004). Zappa. Grove Press. p. 5. 
  • External links[edit]

    • Breech birth controversies in Great Britain
    • GLOWM video demonstrating vaginal breech delivery techniques

    Maternal care related to the
    fetus and amniotic cavity

    • amniotic fluid
      • Oligohydramnios
      • Polyhydramnios
    • Braxton Hicks contractions
    • chorion / amnion
      • Amniotic band syndrome
      • Chorioamnionitis
      • Chorionic hematoma
      • Monoamniotic twins
      • Premature rupture of membranes
    • Obstetrical bleeding
      • Antepartum
    • placenta
      • Circumvallate placenta
      • Monochorionic twins
      • Placenta accreta
      • Placenta praevia
      • Placental abruption
      • Twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome


    • Amniotic fluid embolism
    • Cephalopelvic disproportion
    • Dystocia
      • Shoulder dystocia
    • Fetal distress
    • Locked twins
    • Obstetrical bleeding
      • Postpartum
    • Pain management during childbirth
    • placenta
      • Placenta accreta
    • Preterm birth
    • Postmature birth
    • Umbilical cord prolapse
    • Uterine inversion
    • Uterine rupture
    • Vasa praevia


    • Breastfeeding difficulties
      • Low milk supply
      • Cracked nipples
    • Breast engorgement
    • Childbirth-related posttraumatic stress disorder
    • Diastasis symphysis pubis
    • Postpartum bleeding
    • Peripartum cardiomyopathy
    • Postpartum depression
    • Postpartum thyroiditis
    • Puerperal fever
    • Puerperal mastitis


    • Concomitant conditions
      • Diabetes mellitus
      • Systemic lupus erythematosus
      • Thyroid disorders
    • Maternal death
    • Sexual activity during pregnancy



    Obstetric history

    • Gravidity
    • Parity
    • TPAL

    hap birth

    hap birth

    to the bean deadpeach 

    MPREG Birth!

    Ilya giving birth!

    Give Birth

    I’ve actually tried to draw this probably four times in the past years, but none of those attempts looked very good. Reading Rabid: A Cultural History of the World’s Most Diabolical Virus gave me this inspiration years ago. I wish I remembered what the exact …

    Silver’s birth

    I did this quick draw 

    Twins birth

    Explore chakrapani_008’s photos on Flickr. chakrapani_008 has uploaded 78 photos to Flickr.

    New Zealand Prime Minister Ardern Gives Birth to Baby Girl

    New Zealand Prime Minister Ardern Gives Birth to Baby Girl

    New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern gave birth to her first child, a girl, on Thursday, Ardern said in a posting on Instagram.

    New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern Gives Birth to First Child

    New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern gave birth to her first child, a girl, on Thursday, Ardern said in a posting on Instagram.





    a birthday gift for my sister… … her birthday is tomorrow!!!!!!! and oof i luv them!!!!!!!!!!!   this is messy but im trying to get better !


    my gf gave me a cu te bear for my birthday and i love her  


    He took it rather well…? XP  Become my Patron


    garfield is 40 now




    Happy Birthday to jellubean !!! gosh you9ve been such a great friend to me,, i cant believe we9ve been friends for like 3 years now ;;v;; im really glad ive been here to see you grow both as an artist and a person!! thanks for helping me grow as well haha I h…




    Oh shet this got weird


    a birthdaygift for my dear frienddddd hAPPY BIRTHDAAAAY!!!!1 nyt oot aikuinen hurraAA!!

    Nirvana Baby, Spencer Elden!.?.! Shot for Obey Clothing: An interview with Spencer Elden, the infant from the cover of Nirvana’s” Nevermind “cd. We overtook the 19 years of age artist presently dealing with Shepard Fairey at Obey. Songs by Ernest Gonzales “Opening

    A Lost Sacred Door”

    Shot on a Canon 7d.

    Birth weight

    Baby weighed as appropriate for gestational age.

    Birth weight is the body weight of a baby at its birth.[1] The average birth weight in babies of European heritage is 3.5 kilograms (7.7 lb), though the range of normal is between 2.5 kilograms (5.5 lb) and 5 kilograms (11 lb) (all but 5% of newborns will fall into this range). Babies of south Asian and Chinese heritage weigh about 240 grams (0.53 lb) less.[2][3]

    There have been numerous studies that have attempted, with varying degrees of success, to show links between birth weight and later-life conditions, including diabetes, obesity, tobacco smoking and intelligence. Low birth weight is associated with neonatal infection.


    • 1 Determinants
    • 2 Abnormalities
    • 3 Influence on adult life
      • 3.1 Obesity
      • 3.2 Diabetes
      • 3.3 Intelligence
    • 4 Poor neonatal care
    • 5 Epidemiology
    • 6 See also
    • 7 References
    • 8 External links


    There are basically two distinct determinants for birth weight:

    • The duration of gestation prior to birth, that is, the gestational age at which the child is born

    Relation of weight and gestational age[where?].

    • The prenatal growth rate, generally measured in relation to what weight is expected for any gestational age.

    The incidence of birth weight being outside what is normal is influenced by the parents in numerous ways, including:

    • Genetics
    • The health of the mother, particularly during the pregnancy. Intercurrent diseases in pregnancy are sometimes associated with decreased birth weight. For example, Celiac disease confers an odds ratio of low birth weight of approximately 1.8.[4]
    • Environmental factors, including exposure of the mother to secondhand smoke[5]
    • Economic status of the parents gives inconsistent study findings according to a review on 2010, and remains speculative as a determinant.[6]
    • Other factors, like multiple births, where each baby is likely to be outside the AGA (appropriate for gestational age), one more so than the other.


    • A low birth weight can be caused either by a preterm birth (low gestational age at birth) or of the infant being small for gestational age (slow prenatal growth rate), or a combination of both.
    • A very large birth weight is usually caused by the infant having been large for gestational age

    Influence on adult life[edit]

    Studies have been conducted to investigate how a person’s birth weight can influence aspects of their future life. This includes theorised links with obesity, diabetes and intelligence.


    A baby born small or large for gestational age (either of the two extremes) is thought to have an increased risk of obesity in later life,[7][8] but it was also shown that this relationship is fully explained by maternal weight.[9]

    Growth hormone (GH) therapy at a certain dose induced catch-up of lean body mass (LBM). However percentage body fat decreased in the GH-treated subjects. Bone mineral density SDS measured by DEXA increased significantly in the GH-treated group compared to the untreated subjects, though there is much debate over whether or not SGA (small for gestational age) is significantly adverse to children to warrant inducing catch-up.[10]


    Babies that have a low birth weight are thought to have an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes in later life.[11][12][13] [14]


    Some studies have shown a direct link between an increased birth weight and an increased intelligence quotient.[15][16][17] Increased birth weight is also linked to greater risk of developing autism.[18]

    Poor neonatal care[edit]

    Recent evidence suggests that the effects of low birth weight are constant across developmental years, suggesting that poor neonatal care has long term impacts.[19]


    Disability-adjusted life years out of 100,000 lost due to any cause in 2004.[20]

      no data
      less than 9,250
      more than 80,000

    See also[edit]

    • Barker’s hypothesis
    • MOMO syndrome
    • Low birth weight paradox
    • Prenatal nutrition and birth weight


  • ^ Definitions Archived April 2, 2012, at the Wayback Machine. from Georgia Department of Public Health. Date: 12/04/2008. Original citation: “Birthweight: Infant’s weight recorded at the time of birth”
  • ^ “New birth weight curves tailored to baby’s ethnicity | Toronto Star”. Retrieved 2016-09-22. 
  • ^ Janssen, Patricia A; Thiessen, Paul; Klein, Michael C; Whitfield, Michael F; MacNab, Ying C; Cullis-Kuhl, Sue C (2007-07-10). “Standards for the measurement of birth weight, length and head circumference at term in neonates of European, Chinese and South Asian ancestry”. Open Medicine. 1 (2): e74–e88. ISSN 1911-2092. PMC 2802014 . PMID 20101298. 
  • ^ Tersigni C, Castellani R, de Waure C, et al. (2014). “Celiac disease and reproductive disorders: meta-analysis of epidemiologic associations and potential pathogenic mechanisms”. Human Reproduction Update. 20 (4): 582–93. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmu007. PMID 24619876. 
  • ^ “The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General”. Surgeon General of the United States. 2006-06-27. Retrieved 2014-06-16.  pp. 198–205
  • ^ Margerison Zilko CE (January 2010). “Economic contraction and birth outcomes: an integrative review”. Hum Reprod Update. 16 (4): 445–458. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmp059. PMID 20085917. 
  • ^ “3 stages of childhood may predict obesity risk – Fitness –”. Retrieved 2007-11-28. 
  • ^ Singhal A, Wells J, Cole TJ, Fewtrell M, Lucas A (1 March 2003). “Programming of lean body mass: a link between birth weight, obesity, and cardiovascular disease?”. Am J Clin Nutr. 77 (3): 726–30. PMID 12600868. 
  • ^ Parsons TJ, Power C, Manor O (December 2001). “Fetal and early life growth and body mass index from birth to early adulthood in 1958 British cohort: longitudinal study”. BMJ. 323 (7325): 1331–5. doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7325.1331. PMC 60670 . PMID 11739217. 
  • ^ “GH Treatment Effects on Body Composition in SGA”. Growth, Genetics & Hormones. 24 (1). May 2008. 
  • ^ “Low birth weight diabetes link”. BBC News. 2005-02-25. Retrieved 2007-11-28. 
  • ^ Gillman MW, Rifas-Shiman S, Berkey CS, Field AE, Colditz GA (March 2003). “Maternal gestational diabetes, birth weight, and adolescent obesity”. Pediatrics. 111 (3): e221–6. doi:10.1542/peds.111.3.e221. PMID 12612275. 
  • ^ Rich-Edwards JW, Colditz GA, Stampfer MJ, et al. (1999). “Birthweight and the risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus in adult women”. Ann Intern Med. 130 (4 Pt 1): 278–84. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-130-4_part_1-199902160-00005. PMID 10068385. 
  • ^ Li, Yanping; Ley, Silvia; Tobias, Deirdre; Chiuve, Stephanie; VanderWeele, Tyler (June 17, 2015). “Birth weight and later life adherence to unhealthy lifestyles in predicting type 2 diabetes: prospective cohort study”. BMJ. 351: h3673. doi:10.1136/bmj.h3672. 
  • ^ Matte TD, Bresnahan M, Begg MD, Susser E (August 2001). “Influence of variation in birth weight within normal range and within sibships on IQ at age 7 years: cohort study”. BMJ. 323 (7308): 310–4. doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7308.310. PMC 37317 . PMID 11498487. 
  • ^ “The Future of Children – Sub-Sections”. Archived from the original on 2007-10-22. Retrieved 2007-11-28. 
  • ^ Matte TD, Bresnahan M, Begg MD, Susser E (August 2001). “Influence of variation in birth weight within normal range and within sibships on IQ at age 7 years: cohort study”. BMJ. 323 (7308): 310–4. doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7308.310. PMC 37317 . PMID 11498487. Lay summary – BBC News (August 9, 2001). 
  • ^ Lord C (April 2013). “Fetal and sociocultural environments and autism”. The American Journal of Psychiatry. 170 (4): 355–8. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.13010078. PMID 23545788. Lay summary – ScienceDaily (May 2, 2013). 
  • ^ Figlio David; Guryan Jonathan; Karbownik Krzysztof; Roth Jeffrey (2014). “The Effects of Poor Neonatal Health on Children’s Cognitive Development”. American Economic Review. 104 (12): 3921–55. doi:10.1257/aer.104.12.3921. 
  • ^ “WHO Disease and injury country estimates”. World Health Organization. 2009. Retrieved Nov 11, 2009. 
  • External links[edit]

    • MedlinePlus Encyclopedia Intrauterine growth restriction
    • Peleg D, Kennedy CM, Hunter SK (August 1998). “Intrauterine growth restriction: identification and management”. Am Fam Physician. 58 (2): 453–60, 466–7. PMID 9713399. 
    • “Intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR)” at Health System, University of Virginia
    • Fetal Growth Restriction at eMedicine
    • “Researchers link low birth weight to lower achievement”
    • “Management of Suspected Fetal Macrosomia”
    • “Vit D linked to baby birth weight” at BBC News, 25 April 2006
    • Born in Bradford – 2006 cohort study into the causes of low birth weight and infant mortality in Bradford, UK
    • Intrauterine Growth Restriction Help – IUGR factors and solutions



    Obstetric history

    • Gravidity
    • Parity
    • TPAL

    Birth price

    Not to be confused with Total fertility rate.

    Countries by crude birth rate (CBR) in 2014

    The birth rate (technically, births/population rate) is the total number of live births per 1,000 in a population in a year or period.[1] The rate of births in a population is calculated in several ways: live births from a universal registration system for births, deaths, and marriages; population counts from a census, and estimation through specialized demographic techniques. The birth rate (along with mortality and migration rate) are used to calculate population growth.

    The crude birth rate is the number of live births per year per 1,000 midyear population[2][3] Another term used interchangeably with birth rate is natality.[4] When the crude death rate is subtracted from the crude birth rate, the result is the rate of natural increase (RNI).[5] This is equal to the rate of population change (excluding migration).[5]

    The total (crude) birth rate (which includes all births)—typically indicated as births per 1,000 population—is distinguished from an age-specific rate (the number of births per 1,000 persons in an age group).[6] The first known use of the term “birth rate” in English occurred in 1859.[7]

    The average global birth rate is 18.5 births per 1,000 total population in 2016.[9] The death rate is 7.8 per 1,000 per year. The RNI is thus 1.06 percent. In 2012 the average global birth rate was 19.611 according to the World Bank [10] and 19.15 births per 1,000 total population according to the CIA,[11] compared to 20.09 per 1,000 total population in 2007.[12]

    The 2016 average of 18.6 births per 1,000 total population is estimated to be about 4.3 births/second or about 256 births/minute for the world.[9]


    • 1 Political issues
    • 2 National birth rates
    • 3 Sub-Saharan Africa
    • 4 Afghanistan
    • 5 Japan
    • 6 Australia
    • 7 Coercive population control
    • 8 United States
      • 8.1 Current
        • 8.1.1 Illicit drugs
    • 9 Factors affecting birth rate
    • 10 See also
    • 11 Notes
    • 12 References
    • 13 External links

    Political issues[edit]

    In the 1970s the Singaporean government encouraged small families.

    Placard showing negative effects of lack of family planning and having too many children and infants (Ethiopia)

    The birth rate is an issue of concern and policy for national governments. Some (including those of Italy and Malaysia) seek to increase the birth rate with financial incentives or provision of support services to new mothers. Conversely, other countries have policies to reduce the birth rate (for example, China’s one-child policy which was in effect from 1978 to 2015). Policies to increase the crude birth rate are known as pro-natalist policies, and policies to reduce the crude birth rate are known as anti-natalist policies. Measures such as improved information on birth control and its availability have achieved similar results in countries such as Iran.

    There has also been discussion on whether bringing women into the forefront of development initiatives will lead to a decline in birth rates. In some countries, government policies have focused on reducing birth rates by improving women’s rights, sexual and reproductive health. Typically, high birth rates are associated with health problems, low life expectancy, low living standards, low social status for women and low educational levels. Demographic transition theory postulates that as a country undergoes economic development and social change its population growth declines, with birth rates serving as an indicator.

    At the 1974 World Population Conference in Bucharest, Romania, women’s issues gained considerable attention. Family programs were discussed, and 137 countries drafted a World Population Plan of Action. As part of the discussion, many countries accepted modern birth control methods such as the birth control pill and the condom while opposing abortion. Population and the need to incorporate women into the discourse were discussed; it was agreed that improvements in women’s status and initiatives in defense of reproductive health and freedom, the environment, and sustainable socioeconomic development were needed.

    Birth rates ranging from 10–20 births per 1,000 are considered low, while rates from 40–50 births per 1,000 are considered high.[13] There are problems associated with both extremes. High birth rates may stress government welfare and family programs. Additional problems faced by a country with a high birth rate include educating a growing number of children, creating jobs for these children when they enter the workforce, and dealing with the environmental impact of a large population. Low birth rates may stress the government to provide adequate senior welfare systems and stress families who must support the elders themselves. There will be fewer children (and a working-age population) to support an aging population.

    National birth rates[edit]

    According to the CIA’s The World Factbook, the country with the highest birth rate is Niger (at 51.26 births per 1,000 people). The country with the lowest birth rate is Monaco, at 6.72 births per thousand.

    Compared with the 1950s (when the birth rate was 36 per thousand),[14] the birth rate has declined by 16 per thousand. In July 2011, the U.S. National Institutes of Health announced that the adolescent birth rate continues to decline.[15]

    Birth rates vary within a geographic area. In Europe as of July 2011, Ireland’s birth rate is 16.5 per 1000 (3.5 percent higher than the next-ranked country, the UK). France has a birth rate of 12.8 per thousand, while Sweden is at 12.3.[16][17]

    In July 2011, the UK’s Office for National Statistics (ONS) announced a 2.4 percent increase in live births in the UK in 2010.[18] This is the highest birth rate in the UK in 40 years.[18] However, the UK record year for births and birth rate remains 1920 (when the ONS reported over 957,000 births to a population of “around 40 million”).[19] In contrast, the birth rate in Germany is only 8.3 per thousand—so low that the UK and France (which have smaller populations) had more births in the past year.[20]

    Birth rates also vary in a geographic area among demographic groups. For example, in April 2011 the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced that the birth rate for women over age 40 in the U.S. rose between 2007 and 2009 and fell in every other age group during the same period.[21]

    In August 2011 Taiwan’s government announced that its birth rate declined in the previous year, despite the fact that the government implemented approaches to encourage fertility.[22]

    Niger has the highest birth rate in the world with 49.443 per thousand people.[23] Japan has one of the lowest birth rates in the world with 8 per thousand people.[24] While in Japan there are 126 million people [25] and in Niger 21 million,[26] both countries had around 1 million babies born in 2016.

    Sub-Saharan Africa[edit]

    The region of Sub-Saharan Africa has the highest birth rate in the world. As of 2016, Niger, Mali, Uganda, Zambia, and Burundi have the highest birth rates in the world.[27] This is part of the fertility-income paradox, as these countries are very poor, and it may seem counter-intuitive for families there to have so many children. The inverse relationship between income and fertility has been termed a demographic-economic “paradox” by the notion that greater means would enable the production of more offspring as suggested by the influential Thomas Malthus.[28]


    Afghanistan has the 11th highest birth rate in the world, and also the highest birth rate of any non-African country (as of 2016).[27] The rapid population growth of Afghanistan is considered a problem by preventing population stabilization, and affecting maternal and infant health.[29][30] Reasons for large families include tradition, religion, the low status of women and the cultural desire to have several sons.[29][31]


    Historic population of Japan (1920-2010) with projected population (2011-2060).

    Japan has the third lowest birth rate in the world (as of 2016), with only Saint Pierre and Miquelon and Monaco having lower births rates.[27] Japan has to deal with an unbalanced population with many elderly but few youth, and the situation is estimated to get worse in the future, unless there are major changes. An increasing number of Japanese people are staying unmarried: between 1980 and 2010, the percentage of the population who had never married increased from 22% to almost 30%, even as the population continued to age, and by 2035 one in four people will not marry during their childbearing years.[32] The Japanese sociologist Masahiro Yamada coined the term “parasite singles” for unmarried adults in their late 20s and 30s who continue to live with their parents.[33]


    Historically, Australia has had a relatively low fertility rate, reaching a high of 3.14 births per woman in 1960.[34] This was followed by a decline which continued until the mid-2000, when a one off cash incentive was introduced to reverse the decline. In 2004, the then Howard government introduced a non-means tested ‘Maternity Payment’ to parents of every newborn as a substitute to maternity leave. The payment known as the ‘Baby Bonus’ was A$3000 per child. This rose to A$5000 which was paid in 13 instalments.[35]

    At a time when Australia’s unemployment was at a 28-year low of 5.2%, the then Treasurer Peter Costello stated there was opportunity to go lower. With a good economic outlook for Australia, Costello held the view that now was a good time to expand the population, with his famous quote that every family should have three children “one for mum, one for dad and one for the country”.[36] Australia’s fertility rate reached a peak of 1.95 children per woman in 2010, a 30-year high,[34] although still below replacement rate.

    Phil Ruthven of the business information firm IBISWorld believes the spike in fertility was more about timing and less about monetary incentives. Generation X was now aged 25 to 45 years old. With numerous women putting pregnancies off for a few years for the sake of a career, many felt the years closing in and their biological clocks ticking.[37]

    On 1 March 2014, the baby bonus was replaced with Family Tax Benefit A. By then the baby bonus had left its legacy on Australia.[38]

    In 2016, Australia’s fertility rate has only decreased slightly to 1.91 children per woman.[34]

    Coercive population control[edit]

    In the 20th century, several authoritarian governments have sought either to increase or to decrease the birth rates, often through forceful intervention. One of the most notorious natalist policies is that which occurred in communist Romania in the period of 1967-1990 during communist leader Nicolae Ceaușescu, who adopted a very aggressive natalist policy which included outlawing abortion and contraception, routine pregnancy tests for women, taxes on childlessness, and legal discrimination against childless people. This period has later been depicted in movies and documentaries (such as 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days, Children of the Decree). These policies temporarily increased birth rates for a few years, but this was followed by a later decline due to an increased use of illegal abortion.[39][40] Ceaușescu’s policy resulted in over 9,000 women who died due to illegal abortions,[41] large numbers of children put into Romanian orphanages by parents who couldn’t cope with raising them, street children in the 1990s (when many orphanages were closed and the children ended on the streets), and overcrowding in homes and schools. The irony of Ceaușescu’s aggressive natalist policy was a generation that may not have been born would eventually lead the Romanian Revolution which would overthrow and have him executed.[42]

    In stark opposition with Ceaușescu’s natalist policy was China’s one child policy, in effect from 1978 to 2015, which included abuses such as forced abortions.[43] This policy has also been deemed responsible for the common practice of sex selective abortion which led to an imbalanced sex ratio in the country. Given strict family-size limitations and a preference for sons, girls have become unwanted in China because they are considered as depriving the parents of the possibility of having a son. With the progress of prenatal sex-determination technologies and induced abortion, the one-child policy gradually turned into a one-son policy.[44]

    In many countries, the steady decline in birth rates over the past decades can be greatly attributed to the significant gains in women’s freedoms, such as tackling the phenomenon of forced marriage and child marriage, education for women and increased socioeconomic opportunities. Women of all economic, social, religious and educational persuasions are choosing to have fewer children as they are gaining more control over their own reproductive rights. Apart from more children living into their adult years, women are often more ambitious to take up work, education and living their own lives rather than just a life of reproduction.[45] Birth rates in third world countries have fallen due to the introduction of family planning clinics.

    In Bangladesh, one of the poorest countries in the world, women are on average having two children less often than they did before 1999, according to Australian demographer Jack Caldwell. Bangladeshi women eagerly took up contraceptives, like condoms and the pill, on offer from a foreign population agency in a study by the World Bank carried out in 1994. The study proved that family planning could be carried out and accepted practically anywhere. Caldwell also believes that agricultural improvements led to the need for less labour. Children not needed to plough the fields would be of surplus and require some education, so in turn, smaller families, and with smaller families, women are able to work and have greater ambitions.[46]

    Burma, a country which until recently was controlled by an austere military junta, intent on controlling every aspect of its population’s lives. The military generals wanted the countries population doubled. The women’s job was to produce babies to power the countries labour force so family planning was vehemently opposed. The women of Burma opposed this policy, and Peter McDonald of the Australian National University argues this gave rise to a black market trade in contraception, all smuggled from neighbouring Thailand.[47]

    In 1990, five years after the war ended, Iran saw the fastest recorded drop in fertility in world history. Revolution gave way to consumerism and westernization. With TVs and cars came condoms and the pill. A generation of women expected to produce soldiers in the fight against Iraq was met by the next generation of women who had a choice to enjoy some new found luxuries. In the years during the Iran/Iraq war, the women of Iran averaged about 8 children each, a ratio the hard line Islamic President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wanted to revive. As of 2010, the birth rate of Iran is 1.7 babies per woman. Some may say this is a triumph of western values, which give women more freedoms, over an Islamic ruled state.[48]

    Islam clerics are having less influence over women in other Muslim countries also. In the past 30 years Turkey`s fertility rate of children per woman has dropped from 4.07 to 2.08. Tunisia has dropped from 4.82 to 2.14 and Morocco from 5.4 to 2.52 children per woman.[49]

    Latin America, of predominately Catholic faith, has seen the same trends in falling fertility rates. Brazilian women are having half the children they were 25 years ago with a rate of 2.2 children per woman. The Vatican is having less influence over women in other hard-line Catholic countries also. Mexico, El Salvador, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Colombia, Venezuela and Peru have all seen significant drops in fertility in the same period, all going from over six to less than three children per woman. Forty percent of married Brazilian women are choosing to get sterilised after having children but this may be a compromise as it is only one confession of sin to the church. Some may say this is a triumph of Western values, which give women more freedoms, over a Catholic state.[50]

    United States[edit]

    According to U.S. federal-government data released in March 2011, births fell four percent from 2007 to 2009 (the largest drop in the U.S. for any two-year period since the 1970s).[51] Births have declined for three consecutive years, and are now seven percent below the 2007 peak.[52] This drop has continued through 2010, according to data released by the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics in June 2011.[53] Experts have suggested that this decline is a reflection of unfavorable economic conditions.[54] The connection between birth rate and economic conditions stems from the fact that US birth rates have fallen to levels comparable to those during the Great Depression during the 1930s.[55] A state-level look at fertility, based on a report published by the Pew Research Center in October 2011, points out the strong correlation between lower birth rates and economic distress. In 2008, North Dakota had the nation’s lowest unemployment rate (3.1 percent) and was the only state to show an increase (0.7 percent) in its birth rate. All other states either remained the same or declined.

    The research center’s study also found evidence of a correlation between economic difficulties and fertility decline by race and ethnicity. Hispanics (particularly affected by the recession) have experienced the largest fertility decline, particularly compared to Caucasians (who have less economic hardship and a smaller decline in fertility). In 2008–2009 the birth rate declined 5.9 percent for Hispanic women, 2.4 percent for African American women and 1.6 percent for white women. The relatively large birth rate declines among Hispanics mirror their relatively large economic declines, in terms of jobs and wealth. According to the statistics using the data from National Centre for Health Statistics and U.S. Census Bureau, from 2007 to 2008, the employment rate among Hispanics declined by 1.6 percentage points, compared with declines of 0.7 points for whites. The unemployment rate shows a similar pattern—unemployment among Hispanics increased 2.0 percentage points from 2007 to 2008, while for whites the increase was 0.9 percentage points. A recent report from the Pew Hispanic Center revealed that Hispanics have also been the biggest losers in terms of wealth since the beginning of the recession, with Hispanic households losing 66% of their median wealth from 2005 to 2009. In comparison, black households lost 53% of their median wealth and white households lost only 16%. In facts, Hispanics, who have been hit the hardest in terms of employment and wealth, have also experienced the largest fertility declines since the onset of the recession because the birth rate declines of Hispanic women is the highest while comparing to the White women. Since, the unemployment rate has been increasing, the birth rate decline has been decreasing.[56]

    Other factors (such as women’s labor-force participation, contraceptive technology and public policy) make it difficult to determine how much economic change affect fertility. Research suggests that much of the fertility decline during an economic downturn is a postponement of childbearing, not a decision to have fewer (or no) children; people plan to “catch up” to their plans of bearing children when economic conditions improve. Younger women are more likely than older women to postpone pregnancy due to economic factors, since they have more years of fertility remaining.[57]

    In 2013, teenage birth rates in the U.S. were at the lowest level in U.S. history.[58] Teen birth rates in the U.S. have decreased from 1991 through 2012 (except for an increase from 2005–2007).[58] The other aberration from this otherwise-steady decline in teen birth rates is the six percent decrease in birth rates for 15- to 19-year-olds between 2008 and 2009.[58] Despite the decrease, U.S. teen birth rates remain higher than those in other developed nations.[58] Racial differences affect teen birth and pregnancy rates: American Indian/Alaska Native, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic black teen pregnancy rates are more than double the non-Hispanic white teenage birth rate.[59]


    States strict in enforcing child support have up to 20 percent fewer unmarried births than states that are lax about getting unmarried dads to pay, the researchers found. Moreover, according to the results, if all 50 states in the United States had done at least as well in their enforcement efforts as the state ranked fifth from the top, that would have led to a 20 percent reduction in out-of-wedlock births.[60]

    The United States population growth is at an historical low level as the United States current birth rates are the lowest ever recorded.[61] The low birth rates in the contemporary United States can possibly be ascribed to the recession, which led women to postpone having children and fewer immigrants coming to the US. The current US birth rates are not high enough to maintain the size of the U.S. population, according to The Economist.[62][63]

    Illicit drugs[edit]

    In the United States, amphetamines such as methamphetamine have attributes that greatly reduce ones sexual interests, which may or may not have effects on birth rate.[64] Opioid usage has resulted in an 80% increase of biological damage in Denver, Colorado, as the vast majority of these newborn Americans are born addicted to these substances and suffer opioid withdrawals upon entering the world.[65]

    Factors affecting birth rate[edit]

    Main article: Fertility factor (demography)

    Human Development Index map. Darker is higher. Countries with a higher HDI usually have a lower birth rate, known as the fertility-income paradox.

    There are many factors that interact in complex ways, influencing the births rate of a population. Developed countries have a lower birth rate than underdeveloped countries (see Income and fertility). A parent’s number of children strongly correlates with the number of children that each person in the next generation will eventually have.[66] Factors generally associated with increased fertility include religiosity,[67] intention to have children,[68] and maternal support.[69] Factors generally associated with decreased fertility include wealth, education,[70] female labor participation,[71] urban residence,[72] intelligence, increased female age and (to a lesser degree) increased male age. Many of these factors however are not universal, and differ by region and social class. For instance, at a global level, religion is correlated with increased fertility, but in the West less so: Scandinavian countries and France are among the least religious in the EU, but have the highest TFR, while the opposite is true about Portugal, Greece, Cyprus, Poland and Spain. (see Religion in the European Union).[73]

    Reproductive health can also affect the birth rate, as untreated infections can lead to fertility problems, as can be seen in the “infertility belt” – a region that stretches across central Africa from the United Republic of Tanzania in the east to Gabon in the west, and which has a lower fertility than other African regions.[74][75]

    Child custody laws, affecting fathers’ parental rights over their children from birth until child custody ends at age 18, may have an effect on the birth rate. U.S. states strict in enforcing child support have up to 20 percent fewer unmarried births than states that are lax about getting unmarried fathers to pay, the researchers found. Moreover, according to the results, if all 50 states in the United States had done at least as well in their enforcement efforts as the state ranked fifth from the top, that would have led to a 20 percent reduction in out-of-wedlock births.[60]

    See also[edit]

    • Death rate
    • Human overpopulation
    • Human population control
    • Population aging
    • Population decline
    • Total fertility rate

    Case studies

    • Aging of Europe
    • Aging of Japan


    • List of sovereign states and dependent territories by birth rate
    • List of sovereign states and dependent territories by fertility rate


    • Population Matters (formerly known as the Optimum Population Trust)


  • ^ “World Birth rate – Demographics”. Retrieved 17 October 2011. 
  • ^ “Data – Population and Demographic Indicators”. Retrieved 2017-02-26. 
  • ^ See “Fertility rates”; Economic Geography Glossary at University of Washington
  • ^ “birthrate – definition of birthrate by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia”. Retrieved 17 October 2011. 
  • ^ a b “Birth rate, crude (per 1,000 people) | Data | Table”. Retrieved 17 October 2011. 
  • ^ “birthrate: Definition from”. Retrieved 17 October 2011. 
  • ^ “Birthrate – Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary”. Retrieved 17 October 2011. 
  • ^ “UNdata: Crude birth rate (per 1,000 population)”. United Nations. 25 August 2011. Retrieved 17 October 2011. 
  • ^ a b “CIA World Factbook. (Search for ‘People and Society’)”. 2016. 
  • ^ “Birth rate, crude (per 1,000 people) | Data”. Retrieved 2017-03-11. 
  • ^ Staff (2012). “FIELD LISTING :: BIRTH RATE”. Central Intelligence Agency – The World Factbook. Central Intelligence Agency. Archived from the original on 11 December 2007. Retrieved 4 June 2012. 
  • ^ Staff (Dec 6, 2007). “FIELD LISTING – BIRTH RATE”. Central Intelligence Agency – The World Factbook. Central Intelligence Agency. Archived from the original on 11 December 2007. Retrieved 1 November 2012. 
  • ^ “Fertility and Birth Rates”. Child Trends. 2015-03-24. Retrieved 2016-05-17. 
  • ^ “Crude Birth Rates – The World and its Major Regions, 1950–2050”. Archived from the original on 16 August 2011. Retrieved 17 October 2011. 
  • ^ “Federal report shows drop in adolescent birth rate, July 7, 2011 News Release – National Institutes of Health (NIH)”. 7 July 2011. Retrieved 17 October 2011. 
  • ^ Susan Daly. “Ireland has one of highest birth and lowest death rates in EU · TheJournal”. Retrieved 17 October 2011. 
  • ^ “Crude birth rate (Per 1000 person)”. Eurostat. Retrieved 21 April 2015. 
  • ^ a b Press Association (13 July 2011). “Call for more midwives as birth rate reaches 40-year high | Society |”. The Guardian. UK. Retrieved 17 October 2011. 
  • ^ Michael Blastland (2 February 2012). “Go Figure: When was the real baby boom?”. BBC news magazine. Retrieved 5 April 2012. 
  • ^ “Germany faces up to its kinder surprise”. The Irish Times. 9 August 2011. 
  • ^ the CNN Wire staff (1 April 2011). “CDC records rise in birth rate for women over 40”. CNN. Retrieved 17 October 2011. 
  • ^ Sui, Cindy (15 August 2011). “BBC News – Taiwanese birth rate plummets despite measures”. BBC. Retrieved 17 October 2011. 
  • ^ “Birth rate, crude (per 1,000 people) | Data”. Retrieved 2017-03-11. 
  • ^ “Birth rate, crude (per 1,000 people) | Data”. Retrieved 2017-03-11. 
  • ^ “Population Pyramid of Japan in 2016”. Retrieved 2017-03-11. 
  • ^ “Population Pyramid of Niger in 2016”. Retrieved 2017-03-11. 
  • ^ a b c “The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency”. Retrieved 2017-03-11. 
  • ^ Malthus, Thomas Robert (1826), An Essay on the Principle of Population (6 ed.), London: John Murray, archived from the original on 28 August 2013 
  • ^ a b “Afghanistan: Population Boom Threatens Stabilization Chances”. 2011-08-09. Retrieved 2017-03-11. 
  • ^ “IRIN | High birth rate killing mothers, infants – UNFPA expert”. 2008-07-14. Retrieved 2017-03-11. 
  • ^ “AFGHANISTAN: Large families encouraged by culture as well as religion | Women News Network / WNN Global”. Retrieved 2017-03-11. 
  • ^ Yoshida, Reiji (31 December 2015). “Japan’s population dilemma, in a single-occupancy nutshell”. The Japan Times. Retrieved 14 January 2016. 
  • ^ Wiseman, Paul (2004-06-02). “ – No sex please we’re Japanese”. Retrieved 2017-03-11. 
  • ^ a b c Staff (2016-10-23). “Australian Population”. Retrieved 2016-10-23. 
  • ^ Staff (2013-05-15). “The Baby Bonus Generation”. Retrieved 2016-10-23. 
  • ^ Costello, Peter (2004-12-09). “ABC TV Transcript”. Australian Broadcast Commission. Retrieved 2016-10-23. 
  • ^ Ruthven, Phil (2007-06-27). “ABC Radio Transcript”. Australian Broadcast Commission. Retrieved 2016-10-23. 
  • ^ Staff (2013-05-15). “The McCrindle Blog”. Retrieved 2016-10-23. 
  • ^ “Europe the continent with the lowest fertility | Human Reproduction Update | Oxford Academic”. Retrieved 2017-03-11. 
  • ^ Mihai Horga1; Caitlin Gerdts; Malcolm Potts. “The remarkable story of Romanian women’s struggle to manage their fertility | Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Healthcare”. Retrieved 2017-03-11. 
  • ^ Kligman, Gail. “Political Demography: The Banning of Abortion in Ceausescu’s Romania”. In Ginsburg, Faye D.; Rapp, Rayna, eds. Conceiving the New World Order: The Global Politics of Reproduction. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1995 :234-255. Unique Identifier : AIDSLINE KIE/49442.
  • ^ Levitt & Dubner, Steven & Stephen (2005). Freakonomics. 80 Strand, London WC2R ORL England: Penguin Group. p. 107. ISBN 9780141019017 – via Clays Ltd. 
  • ^ “China forced abortion photo sparks outrage – BBC News”. Retrieved 2017-03-11. 
  • ^ Bulte, E., Heerink, N., & Zhang, X. (2011). “China’s one-child policy and ‘the mystery of missing women’: ethnic minorities and male-biased sex ratios”. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. 73 (1): 0305–9049. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0084.2010.00601.x. CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
  • ^ Pearse, Fred (2010). People Quake. 61-63 Uxbridge Road, London W5 5SA: Eden Project Books. pp. P131. ISBN 9781905811342 – via A Random House Group Company. 
  • ^ Pearse, Fred (2010). People Quake. 61-63 Uxbridge Road, London W5 5SA: Eden Project Books. pp. P133–136. ISBN 9781905811342 – via A Random House Group Company. 
  • ^ Pearse, Fred (2010). People Quake. 61-63 Uxbridge Road, London W5 5SA: Eden Project Books. pp. P136. ISBN 9781905811342 – via A Random House Group Company. 
  • ^ Pearse, Fred (2010). People Quake. 61-63 Uxbridge Road, London W5 5SA: Eden Project Books. pp. P137–139. ISBN 9781905811342 – via A Random House Group Company. 
  • ^ Staff (22 October 2016). “worldmeters”. Retrieved 2016-10-22. 
  • ^ Pearse, Fred (2010). People Quake. 61-62 Uxbridge Road, London W5 5SA: Eden Project Books. pp. P140. ISBN 9781905811342 – via A Random House Group Company. 
  • ^ Roan, Shari (31 March 2011). “Us Birth Rate | U.S. birth rate: Drop in birth rate is the biggest in 30 years – Los Angeles Times”. Retrieved 17 October 2011. 
  • ^ Bill McBride (12 August 2011). “America’s Birth Rate Declined For The Third Year Running”. Retrieved 17 October 2011. 
  • ^ Bill McBride (12 August 2011). “America’s Birth Rate Declined For The Third Year Running”. Retrieved 17 October 2011. 
  • ^ “Economic turmoil taking its toll on childbearing”. USA Today. 11 August 2011. Retrieved 17 October 2011. 
  • ^ “Lower birth rate blamed on the economy”. 12 August 2011. Archived from the original on 9 February 2013. Retrieved 17 October 2011. 
  • ^ Livingston, Gretchen. “In a Down Economy, Fewer Births”. Pew Research Center. Retrieved 29 March 2017. 
  • ^ “In a Down Economy, Fewer Births | Pew Research Center”. Retrieved 2017-03-11. 
  • ^ a b c d “About Teen Pregnancy”. Retrieved 12 May 2015. 
  • ^ “CDC Data & Statistics | Feature: Teen Birth Rates Declined Again in 2009”. 1 July 2011. Retrieved 17 October 2011. 
  • ^ a b “ | Tough child support laws may deter single men from becoming fathers, study finds | University of Washington News and Information”. Archived from the original on 2007-05-05. Retrieved 2017-03-11. 
  • ^ “Baby bust: U.S. births at record low”. CNN. September 6, 2014. 
  • ^ “Population gains at near-historic lows”. The Washington Post. April 19, 2014. 
  • ^ “U.S. Birth Rate Not High Enough To Keep Population Stable”. The Huffington Post. April 19, 2014. 
  • ^
  • ^
  • ^ Murphy, Michael (2013). “Cross-National Patterns of Intergenerational Continuities in Childbearing in Developed Countries”. Biodemography and Social Biology. 59 (2): 101–126. doi:10.1080/19485565.2013.833779. ISSN 1948-5565. 
  • ^ Hayford, S. R.; Morgan, S. P. (2008). “Religiosity and Fertility in the United States: The Role of Fertility Intentions”. Social Forces. 86 (3): 1163. doi:10.1353/sof.0.0000. PMC 2723861 . 
  • ^ Lars Dommermuth; Jane Klobas; Trude Lappegård (2014). “Differences in childbearing by time frame of fertility intention. A study using survey and register data from Norway”.  Part of the research project Family Dynamics, Fertility Choices and Family Policy (FAMDYN)
  • ^ Schaffnit, S. B.; Sear, R. (2014). “Wealth modifies relationships between kin and women’s fertility in high-income countries”. Behavioral Ecology. 25 (4): 834–842. doi:10.1093/beheco/aru059. ISSN 1045-2249. 
  • ^ Rai, Piyush Kant; Pareek, Sarla; Joshi, Hemlata (2013). “Regression Analysis of Collinear Data using r-k Class Estimator: Socio-Economic and Demographic Factors Affecting the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) in India” (PDF). Journal of Data Science. 11. 
  • ^ Bloom, David; Canning, David; Fink, Günther; Finlay, Jocelyn (2009). “Fertility, female labor force participation, and the demographic dividend”. Journal of Economic Growth. 14 (2): 79–101. doi:10.1007/s10887-009-9039-9. 
  • ^ Sato, Yasuhiro (30 July 2006), “Economic geography, fertility and migration” (PDF), Journal of Urban Economics, retrieved 31 March 2008 
  • ^ “Eurostat – Tables, Graphs and Maps Interface (TGM) table”. 2016-08-11. Retrieved 2017-03-11. 
  • ^ “WHO – Mother or nothing: the agony of infertility”. 
  • ^ Collet, M; Reniers, J; Frost, E; Gass, R; Yvert, F; Leclerc, A; Roth-Meyer, C; Ivanoff, B; Meheus, A (1988). “Infertility in Central Africa: infection is the cause”. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 26: 423–8. doi:10.1016/0020-7292(88)90340-2. PMID 2900173. 
  • References[edit]

    • United Nations World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision Population Database
    • Audrey, Clark (1985). Longman Dictionary of Geography, Human and Physical. New York: Longman. 
    • Douglas, Ian; Richard Huggett (2007). Companion Encyclopedia of Geography. New York: Routledge. 
    • Norwood, Carolette. “Re-thinking the integration of women in population development initiatives” Development in Practice. 19.7(2009):906 – 911.
    • World Birth rate by IndexMundi

    External links[edit]

    Media related to Birth and death rates at Wikimedia Commons

    • CIA World Factbook Birth Rate List by Rank

    Breakbot – Baby I’m Yours (feat. Irfane) – HD!.?.!Ed Banger Records mores than happy to reveal the launch of BREAKBOT task Irfane” Baby I’m Yours” video clip! It was( guided) handmade by IRINA DAKEVA @ WIZZ It is composed of approx 2000 images watercolor repainted one after another( we say Aquarelle in french, way a lot more attractive). In the meantime, we placed out a new 10″ consisting of the initial as well as a special remix by Aeroplane. INFANT I’M YOURS EP AVAILABLE ON: iTunes US: iTunes UK: iTunes FR: iTunes DE: iTunes JP: Beatport: AEROPLANE REMIX ON: Beatport: BREAKBOT ON: Facebook: MySpace: