• EatATaco@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    girls under the age of 15 are five times more likely to die in pregnancy than women in their 20s

    I put prime years at late teens to late 20s. This seems to confirm that, not contradict it.

    The second link I cant see if or where they broke it out by age…only teen vs non-teen. I would be curious to see what would change if you moved the number to 17.

    • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Here is more information that includes the ages 16-19. Having a child before the age of 20 increases risks of death, injury, or complications. Again, not prime reproductive years. Before the modern era women had kids young, but thats because EVERYONE had shorter live spans and death was common in general. Still doesn’t add up to “teens are in their reproductbe prime.”

      I have a feeling no matter how many facts or how much data I present to refute your position you aren’t going to be open to changing your mind. However, I’d like this information to be available to others who might find it insightful.

      https://www.webmd.com/baby/teen-pregnancy-medical-risks-and-realities

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        6 months ago

        That doesn’t appear to separate out the ages, it just says it typically happens 15-19, but can be as low as 10.

        I have a feeling no matter how many facts or how much data I present to refute your position you aren’t going to be open to changing your mind.

        Let’s see if you’re projecting:

        “A woman’s fertility peaks between her late teens to late-20s after which it starts to decline”

        But that being said, you recognize that this was typical, which seems you should also recognize that this is what we evolved around. If women were reproducing at a young age, but were dying slightly more by their 30s, this wasn’t creating downward evolutionary pressure.

        • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          The best time to have a baby with the lowest risk is ages 20 - 26. That’s the window with the best outcome. I love science, it’s the best way to move towards better ideas and medical practices. That’s why I care about dispelling the idea that teenagers are in their reproductive prime.

          Also, this might be interesting to you. Women didn’t marry young as frequently as we’re told.

          https://historymyths.wordpress.com/2014/07/06/myth-136-women-married-very-young-in-the-olden-days/

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            6 months ago

            So not being open to changing your mind was a projection. I figured as much, its almost always people thinking they see themselves in other people when they make baseless accusations.

            • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              You ignored data twice, and then I agreed that past 30 is a higher risk pregnancy. No idea what you are talking about friend.

              I then provided info that shows women werent always marrying as young as people tend think which goes against your basis that evolution supports teens being in their reproductive prime. You haven’t supplied any data at all to back up your claims.

              But you do you. The info is out there for you and others. Have a nice day now

              • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                6 months ago

                You ignored data twice

                I addressed all of the data you provided, even asking for further clarification for one of the sources. You just hand-waved my point, with data, away. Even now trying to claim that I didn’t provide it. And you’re accusing me of ignoring data. Lol Just another projection. You’re good at doing this.

        • Beetlejuice001@lemmy.wtf
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          6 months ago

          A little off base, but, Many of my relatives came from families of 6-10 children. More often than not, mothers died in childbirth. Is this where we want society to return?

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            How did you possibly get yourself to this being a reasonable question?

              • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                6 months ago

                Of course it matters because I certainly don’t believe we should go back to that at all and I have no idea how you could had possibly gotten yourself there.

                • Beetlejuice001@lemmy.wtf
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  Justifying sexualization of immature teenage girls leads there.

                  It’s called a hypothetical question