Teen miscarriage in under-developed bodies vs. 20s white women

aka why the r-select pressure to breed as early as possible is directly opposed to the biological science on the subject.

TLDR: K-selection, having kids into the 20s and 30s, is optimal for a woman’s health.

Strap yourself in.

https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l869

“Conclusions The risk of miscarriage varies greatly with maternal age, shows a strong pattern of recurrence, and is also increased after some adverse pregnancy outcomes. Miscarriage and other pregnancy complications might share underlying causes, which could be biological conditions or unmeasured common risk factors.”

That’s important, write that down.

aka if you go Third World and force women to start breeding too early, they’ll be more likely to miscarry healthy children in future. Mother Nature hates r-types.

“Results There were 421 201 pregnancies during the study period. The risk of miscarriage was lowest in women aged 25-29 (10%), and rose rapidly after age 30, reaching 53% in women aged 45 and over. There was a strong recurrence risk of miscarriage, with age adjusted odds ratios of 1.54 (95% confidence interval 1.48 to 1.60) after one miscarriage, 2.21 (2.03 to 2.41) after two, and 3.97 (3.29 to 4.78) after three consecutive miscarriages. The risk of miscarriage was modestly increased if the previous birth ended in a preterm delivery (adjusted odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.29), stillbirth (1.30, 1.11 to 1.53), caesarean section (1.16, 1.12 to 1.21), or if the woman had gestational diabetes in the previous pregnancy (1.19, 1.05 to 1.36). The risk of miscarriage was slightly higher in women who themselves had been small for gestational age (1.08, 1.04 to 1.13).”

LOWEST of all ranges in the mid-late 20s, which, per The World We Have Lost, happens to be the age our wiser medieval ancestors commonly married and commenced reproduction. Almost like they didn’t want their wife to die?

You can’t expect modern medicine to bail you out of degeneracy.

And forcing a woman to start “too early” (really before the pelvic growth plates fuse at 21) makes it more likely your later heirs will be miscarried too. No blaming the woman for your own impatience.

All those described factors sound r-selected, especially the C-section, which doctors shouldn’t be forcing women into for convenience. These are your future kids they’re risking.

This study isn’t precise enough because they try to dodge the teen death issue but here

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC27416/

scroll to:

“Figure ​3 shows the age related risk of spontaneous abortion stratified by parity status and number of previous spontaneous abortions. The association between spontaneous abortion and age was similar in all strata, although the level increased with increasing number of previous spontaneous abortions.”

Similar. It isn’t a huge difference by age alone like you falsely claim, stop being dumb. However….

if we look at marriage survival against IQ (linked to years ago) and cross-reference the J-curve beneath, delayed motherhood (sufficient time to educate) is healthiest for society in terms of infant survival and marital longevity. Divorce is lower in high IQ women, who tend to marry later, which we can lump into the No Shit category.

Fridge horror: The early marriage of the poor CAUSED a lot of their baby deaths! aka The Oven Ain’t Done Yet!

Pedos reee but nature hates them to breed. They’re extreme r.

“The incidence of spontaneous abortion varied according to a woman’s parity and number of spontaneous abortions in the preceding 10 years; among women aged 25-29 years spontaneous abortion occurred in 8.9% of nulliparous women and 9.3% of parous women without a history of spontaneous abortion, in 12.4% and 11.8% of those with a history of one spontaneous abortion, and in 22.7% and 17.7% of those with a history of two spontaneous abortions. After three or more spontaneous abortions, the proportion of pregnancies ending in spontaneous abortion increased to 44.6% in nulliparous women and 35.4% in parous women.”

Personal history and then family history are more important than age. Men need to get this through their thick skull. This is like the IQ and beauty versus popularity and personality divide. A man who praises his wife’s ‘nice’ personality is admitting her ugliness. She isn’t docile, she doesn’t respect you. If we plan to outlive a man, what does his opinion matter? ‘Nice’ is a quality of puppies, not a viable sexual partner. Your level is the best woman you can get – and keep. Men forget the second part. Cheating on a great wife to lose her is stupid.

Widows were hot commodities because they had proven fertility. Especially great if their husband was stoned to death for adultery, so she’ll be quite young.

Do you want to bet on the horse that has won races or never raced?

If marrying a woman at the proper time, with no personal fertility history, ask about the oldest aunt of theirs who had kids.

Ideally, you’d hear 40s for a firstborn. Those are top-tier genes, especially if the child was perfectly healthy. No genetic load. Miscarriages are common though (about 10% under ideal conditions) and hard to tell early on so it isn’t an exact science. It’s odds, it’s probability. So it isn’t so much age, it’s familial genetic load of mutations compounded by time, it only seems like age. The mutations already in their DNA (and higher in men because sperm constantly need to renew) simply become more of what they already are.

The IVF people do not want normie people to discover the simple ways to ensure better fertility health, they’d go out of business if we had a simple eugenic questionnaire prior to marriage e.g. period frequency. Also, miscarriage is actually good if very early because print error kids get expensive. That’s a sign the body is doing what it should, miscarriages aren’t all created equal, only most are bad.

In future we could probably devise a spiteful mutant test prior to marriage. Very Gattaca. On second thought, that might actually be what the test was. Ks approve.

Obviously with age the mutants (only one parent need be) become more apparent, and this also determines things like aging facial bone structure too, but it isn’t CAUSED by age, it’s their genome!

Age is not the true variable, the confound is mutation burden in your DNA (inc germline). Age can estimate on a population level but I implore you, on an individual one, speak to the family for same-sex history up to cousin level, there’s a reason doctors ask about it! It allows them to adjust their predictions without prejudice.

In general women have less abortions young because 1. it counts the healthiest time to breed, the twenties, which conceals the brief increase in the teens, 2. white women conceal the worse stats for non-white women while still a technical majority and 3. they’d have less time to experience anything, there’s been less time alive. This assumes they’re even having sex. Age is a poor metric. Ask about Aunt Meryl with the four kids after 30. You may strike gold and the woman has twins in the family.

Miscarriage is a J-curve by age, NOT linear.
Younger is not automatically better, learn maths dudebros.

Then we isolate the J-curve with no history:

Gee, why don’t the socialists encouraging teen pregnancies tell you this in Sex Ed class?

For my next trick, because I’m that bitch, compare the teen miscarriage line to other young women? [young being prior to middle-age, for women approx 40s]

Pedos reee.

It’s data from 1,221,546 pregnancy outcomes in a white country.

The mid-30s miscarriage risk is the same for that woman as a teen with the same history.

It’s a deeper 20s scoop if both example women had a miscarriage history of one.

Data doesn’t care about your deviance, pedos.

Mother Nature hates you. So those data-ignorant “dusty egg” jokes of mothers in their 30s should logically be applied to ‘teen whore’ types too. If you were being logical, which we all know you aren’t. Teen mothers (and fathers) also tend to have lower IQ, which suggests spiteful mutant. The data lines up perfectly.

They don’t really ‘believe’ in starting prematurely, it’s their life history strategy talking.

They feel a need to breed immediately because they know they’d likely miscarry if they waited like a K-type. Suck it?

“In women with no history of spontaneous abortions we found a slightly lower overall risk of spontaneous abortion among nulliparous women than parous women (10.0% v 11.6%). This tendency was found in all strata of age except for women aged 40-44 years. “

Again, actual women’s middle age. You’d expect that. The system is shutting up shop.

It’s slightly better to have had NO abortions than ONE. Duh? I think women would agree. So if that one spontaneous abortion would be likelier in the teens, should a fertility-oriented high IQ society encourage teen pregnancy?

The answer is clearly no.

And the Middle Ages Western Europeans were smarter than current America.

And you wonder why the white birth rate is so, so low.

Among women with a history of spontaneous abortion, the reverse tendency was observed; in general, nulliparous women had a higher age specific risk than did parous women (fig ​(fig33).”

Stop getting this wrong. We need to avoid spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) to increase the birth rate. You can’t throw conceptions at the wall to see what sticks.

That’s a male perspective on women’s bodies and it’s demonstrably, mathematically wrong.

Not to mention stressful on the longsuffering wife.

Teens (biological children) have a higher pregnancy risk than adult, mature mothers:

“Under the assumption that only 80% of women with abortions in recognised pregnancies were hospitalised the risk of spontaneous abortion would be: 12-19 years, 13.3%; 20-24, 11.1%; 25-29, 11.9%; 30-34, 15.0%; 35-39, 24.6%; 40-44, 51.0%; and 45 or more, 93.4%.” that’s :-

Minor: 13.3% natural abortions

20s: 11.5% natural abortions

30s: 19.8% natural abortions (average, more variation)

40s: basically at least half. You’d need top tier DNA to survive that.

So stop lying, pedos. Call yourself hebe all you like, a POS by any other name.

This doesn’t factor in the mental trauma of giving birth, PTSD is quite common, discounting obvious cases like episiotomies without cause and C-sections with no pain relief. It happens.

Obviously, traumatising your teenage girls will put them off breeding altogether.

Then what happens to your precious ego birth rate?

The teen ectopic pregnancy rate also peaks in the teens comparable to a near-thirty year old.

DAT J-shape curve.

You mad, pedos?

Wait, there’s more!

Now onto stillbirths:

The rate for minors (teens) peaks at the same level as women in their late 30s.

That’s gotta hurt.

Good luck with your scientism though. I’m sure 1M+ white births are lying.

DAT 20s dip:

and it’s fractions of a percent, hardly apocalyptic is it? They’re such special snowflakes with the bloody victim complex.

“The association between maternal age and stillbirth showed a J-shaped curve, but the effect of age was less than for spontaneous abortions and ectopic pregnancies (fig ​(fig5).5). When restricting the analysis to nulliparous women, we found an identical pattern, although the level was slightly higher. The proportion of stillbirths was substantially increased in teenage pregnancies and was at the same level as for the 35-39 year age group. The incidence of stillbirth was unchanged during the study period.”

Ouch.

I’d also like to see a subdivision of dead babies risk in teen/minor mothers by aged daddy. Maybe next time. I covered paternal age generally beforehand anyway.

It’s funny that the paper writers still try to make it about age though. Nice try. Miscarriage is the biggest factor in future fertility according to their actual data, age is more important for niche risk of ectopic and stillbirth, but less so. And most importantly, NONE OF THIS IS LINEAR. NONE OF IT. The curve is a J. Redpills read the data. I don’t care what the researchers claim to get gibs, read the data itself. It is a non sequitur to claim older = worse outcomes and also a non sequitur to claim younger = better outcomes when the data doesn’t show that, it blatantly shows the opposite, a kind of Goldilocks effect in the 20s.

To put this all on increasing age is false reasoning, as shown, it’s increasing mutant burden. Age is a vector of genetic load, not the cause. Like – Being in a car is a vector of drunk driving, it isn’t the alcohol!

But they wanna get cited so…. they’ll twist their own data. Or try? God forbid anything be genetic, even reproduction!

nb “The increase in risk of ectopic pregnancies in teenage women is most likely caused by pelvic inflammatory disease.”

Teenagers are not women but k. And that’s wrong. The female human reproductive system takes time to fully develop. r/K explains this. Inflammation takes years, it’s literally impossible to blame that or 20s would be still higher.

“The risk of stillbirth was found to be high among teenagers, as previously reported.24 This may be a result of unfavourable social and behavioural conditions among pregnant teenagers, although a biological explanation cannot be excluded. The risk of stillbirth among women aged more than 35 years was increased but to a lesser extent….”

lol

“Conclusion

Our study shows an important increase in the risk of spontaneous abortion and other types of fetal loss among women aged more than 40 years”

Middle-age, then? Duh? The body’s aborting print errors like it should?

Yeah because like I said about the r/K system starting up, it also takes years to wind down?

Why aren’t you getting this?

“increase is already considerable among those in their 30s.”

no it isn’t data varies too much in that decade so you cannot accurately comment

“This increase is observed irrespective of a woman’s reproductive history.”

but that’s the bigger effect size? it’s the objectively more important factor?

Can’t hurt feels or lose those IVF shekels, huh?

The effect is still there but that’s a curious omission of scale.

“For society, such findings would indicate that tendencies to postpone pregnancy increase the overall incidence of fetal loss and possibly the costs of health care.”

ooooh they’re pushing teen pregnancies

damn r-types

“overall” POPULATION is not filial risk (personal risk)

filial risk is genetic, kin based

socialists shouldn’t be allowed to science

postponing in a K-select manner is MATURING

it’s HEALTHIER

higher actual birth rate, higher maternal safety, higher child survival

healthier children! higher IQs!

WHAT IS THE DOWNSIDE

= fewer r-types, I weep!

“these factors are highly correlated” = NOT CAUSATION

for the reproductive equation, you must include the age of BOTH parents at conception

BOTH PARENTS.

That’s the genetic equation of causation. Single parents are not up for discussion here, they didn’t impregnate themselves?!!

12-19 (minor/teen) pregnancies, not aborted: 51,132.

That’s a huge dataset of adverse pregnancy outcomes. How will the hebes recover?

….

….

….

in prison, where they belong.

Why are women delaying children?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5908717/Women-freezing-eggs-unable-men-commit-relationship.html

They can’t find a man to commit to the investment with.

“Single women are freezing their eggs due them being unable to find men who will commit to a relationship, rather than to focus on their careers, new research suggests.
Delaying motherhood to focus on work is the least common reason women undergo the procedure, a Yale University study found today.”

“Some 85 percent of the participants were single”

The instinct is that strong.

“Speaking of the findings , study author Dr Marcia Inhorn said: ‘Our study suggests that the lack of a stable partner is the primary motivation. Freezing eggs holds out hope for many”

It isn’t education, it’s the stability of marriage.
Speak to women.

this comment explains the ignorance
“Men wanted to settle down when in their 20s. Stop blaming men for your failures women”

Where are the men financially capable and willing to settle in their 20s? They don’t exist anymore, Grandpa. And a woman still needs to earn food and other living expenses before getting married?

They want totally helpless Disney princess women who magically survived until he showed up.

That’s impossible.

Oh and she has to be super tough and rugged and cool – and deeply feminine!

Frilly apron wearing, pie-baking, gun-toting anal-sex preferring cool girl!

Manic Pixie Dream Waifu!

Wow, why do they attract borderlines so much who try to be everything?

They have no idea what they actually need is simple (and not contradictory) because they feel their wife should be a status symbol, there I said it. Who gives a shit what people think, you bloody omegas. It’s a wife, not a girlfriend. There’s a reason those never work out aka FAIL. The things you look for make it short term. You don’t know what you want.

Male choices are polluted. Your instincts are wrong.

They also focus on trivial shit like music taste and video games and whether they tolerate your BS (enabling is toxic, actually) then ignore divorce risk things like needing matching religion and politics. That includes your own. If you want a Christian, you need to be a real Christian or your divorce risk is still high. You can’t blame the other party. You cannot mitigate your divorce risk by choosing a “good” woman – and why would those women want them? It’s an investment, both parties need to decide to invest.

Imagine –

It’s 6pm, the baby won’t stop crying and your husband prefers a horrid desk job to seeing his child now the novelty’s worn off. The dinner you slaved over for three hours is cold and you’re pretty sure he’s fucking his secretary. All he does is give you money like a child then ignore you like a baby-making Furby. Sexually you’re frustrated because he doesn’t want you since he insisted on watching the baby come out and insisting you breastfeed. You feel ugly, exhausted and unloved. He’s nicer to his friends than he is to you.

That’s practically more miserable than the single mother getting the same or more money.

Was this man a real man? Was he a good choice? Is he superficial or successful?

Selfish people will fail in their marriage. Any selfish person must never ever marry.

If there’s no mutual exchange, they severely over-rate their attractiveness e.g. age 25+, 30+, 35+ = freaky sperm psychiatric risk. Women sense this. It doesn’t matter if you’re Don Draper IRL if you’re unhealthy. Plus cheating is the most common reason for divorce so the ones who plan to cheat deserve to be abandoned, they broke their vow. It’s like signing for insurance and defrauding, they don’t owe you because bad faith, trust bond is gone. Hey, stoning would be cheaper than divorce lawyers and less painful.

A man’s sperm is best age 18. Biologically, men should marry and reproduce 18-21, to 25 latest. The manosphere totally ignores this because it doesn’t care about you. A woman’s fertility peaks 21-28. The system must stabilize. They lie about these things, however I doubt they can read the data and with women it’s more intra-family health. Schools do not inform boys they even have a biological clock! Like the retirement scam.

Another thing these guys in the comments typically say – women should “prep” for decades to be good wives (mileage of definition may vary) but men just need to show up at the end of the aisle one day with penis. That is how all millennia of societies worked, O.K. I guess they own a katana too?

Most comments also fall for the “women want Don Draper career man” trope.
No? Traditional women want a man who is around! Nobody wants a spouse they never see!

nobody.

There are plenty of divorced or single rich men who thought money bought wife approval. She can get her own money? The kids hate them too, it’s a film trope for a reason, it’s fucking child abuse. It’s physical abandonment however much money you throw at them in guilt and their brains still demonstrate it (and in girls things like menarche hitting earlier, as if they’re dead!)…

They have no idea what women want. Look at how Don cracked at the end of that show, those guys are rich spoiled losers totally dependent on a fake economy and rigged promotion system. The gold watch career is GONE. Raising a family on one income is OVER. Workaholism isn’t sexy. It’s a mental problem.

Women have always worked, just not the easily taxed forms? They expect a lot of work from such a woman (at least 50 hours a week, add it up!) but disrespect her enough not to call it that?

That’s your woman, you should be singing her praises!

And they won’t do their fair share, even with childcare?

But nannies are evil and kids need their dad around? For what? To stare at them like possessions?

The guys saying this shit wouldn’t last a week being normal (no fast food and so on) with a small group of well-behaved kids. They’d snap.

Humans didn’t evolve to raise a kid, singular, alone. They need round the clock care, especially babies. You need shifts. I’m betting those guys refuse to let her live around relatives to help out because Muh Career.

The 50s postcard was bullshit even then. Everyone drank, smoked and medicated to numb it.

You need to go back older than that. They refuse. They’re too lazy to be real men. Everyone works. Nobody gets to sit with their feet up being an alcoholic porn addict or whatever. God America, what happened?

Oh, it’s past five so you get to be a slob? No? Parents do things they don’t like all the time! You have to. Dependents aren’t appliances that switch off at 5.30pm week nights. Only a man child would disagree. You are a parent forever. No breaks. These are the guys who bitch about lunch breaks. That’s why women avoid them. The man is meant to be the strong horse, biologically. A woman has to rely on him. He can’t sit there expecting foot rubs when she’s been working all day too (more manual work*, usually, in a weaker body) and there’s hours of work still.

The 50s started daycare and nursery cheats, remember. It was never humanly possible!

Okay, good luck finding a magic woman who will throw a sword at you, while we’re at it, when you can’t accept simple red pill truths about the modern world. This is it. This is the world you live in. It sucks for women too.

Like, if she is with you for your money that’s dumb. You will lose your job. Then what? And did you never see Desperate Housewives? Hours of time to cheat with Juan the Poolboy if all you provide is cash. What about when you retire?

They can’t say “it’s good when we avoid family for the ego boost of a career (don’t lie) but the need in this economy for a woman to earn her keep makes her evil” and “we refuse to marry and single mothers are the devil but women should have magical babies supported by magic money and raised by magic invisible fathers”.

Like, pick a narrative and stick with it, bitches.

Men who hate domestic life? NEVER MARRY.

When an adult chooses to become a parent and they’d make a bad parent, the child suffers.

Picture your kid hating you. If you get angry, never breed. Narcissists don’t want kids, they want supply. The internet confuses the motives.

*Irony: modern mother has more manual exhausting work than her desk job husband.

Educated women better mothers

http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.co.uk/2007/07/women-children-and-education.html

Pretty sure I already mentioned this.

Anyone reading this blog habitually knows that is due to:

  1. Low time preference
  2. High IQ

Personality trait 1 comes from genetic 2.

Breeding before you’re an adult (20s) is a bad idea.

Caution (conscientiousness), vital for good parents, and good pair-bonding ability (not promiscuous) also factor in.

Black menarche related to fecundity

So there may be a good evolutionary reason for r-type behaviours.
They do tend to have more children the earlier they hit puberty, BUT this isn’t good for the individual girl.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19485565.1978.9988327

This paper examines the relationship between age at menarche and fertility from two perspectives. Age at menarche is regarded as a crude indicator of the timing of fecundity that may affect the timing of conception among those sexually active; and age at menarche is regarded as a crude indicator of the timing of sexual maturation that may influence the timing of socio‐sexual behavior, namely dating and sexual intercourse. The data are drawn from a survey of New York City women who recently had their first child. The findings suggest that age at menarche as an indicator of fecundity is not a good predictor of the timing of the first birth, when controlling for age at first sexual intercourse. Looking only at initial noncontraceptors, however, we find the relationship is stronger. Age at menarche, viewed as an indicator of the timing of sexual maturation, does seem to have some influence on the timing of dating, but only for Blacks. For both races, age at first date is related to age at first sexual intercourse.

Let your kids ‘date’, don’t act shocked when there are STDs and teenage pregnancies. If they’re so ‘mature’ they can live alone before doing that stuff. Paying for their own stuff.

While overall age of menarche doesn’t impact fertility or menopause, it can affect cancer or heart disease risk profiles, too premature or late, respectively.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/109646-does-the-age-you-get-your-first-period-impact-your-fertility

http://fusion.net/story/171930/early-puberty-period-age-matters-breast-cancer/

In the mid-19th Century, the average age of menarche in the U.S. was around 17 years old (though given that slavery wasn’t outlawed until 1865, that data was not likely entirely representative). By 2002, it had dropped to 12.6 years old, according to the CDC, and by 2010, to 12.5 years old.

Telling little girls to masturbate in Sex Ed class (yes, they do) to ‘explore their bodies’ (orgasm) is probably triggering puberty in that system and menarche earlier, since the body assumes you’re having sex, also giving them a higher breast cancer risk. Thanks, feminism. You’re giving people cancer.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bI-Jau14aLAC&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=masturbation+earlier+menarche#v=onepage&q=masturbation%20earlier%20menarche&f=false

Androgens are triggered and depending on individual sensitivity, this can trigger premature puberty.

Telling little kids to masturbate is grooming in my opinion, and should be illegal.
In fact, pedophiles tell kids to do that, the rest is just context.
The worst behaviours of the worst r-types make total sense when you realize they don’t have morals, they want to access the children of Ks and turn them into their own kind.

The people all about sociology are suddenly blaming genetics when it comes to menarche? Anybody else find that odd?

As it is, women shouldn’t be having children before 20, it isn’t physically or psychologically good for us.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234128861_Age_at_menarche_motherhood_and_fertility_among_women_in_Thiruvananthapuram_Kerala

It is recommended that even if early marriages are preferred and adopted as cultural norms, they be discouraged to bear child before the age of 20 years.

But that’s actually good for women (and bad for r-types running Sexual ‘Health’ classes) so don’t expect to hear it.

Recommendations include encouragement of girls’ education, which has many
advantages including the prospects of a better marriage, improved child-rearing, corrected
role of women in the community, financial rewards and improved standard of living for the
family as well as delay of child bearing.
There are literally no downsides to being K-selected.
It’s better for society. (This includes men).
The guys in the manosphere who argue that Muh Evolution said it isn’t pedophilia because ‘if it bleeds, it breeds’ are scientifically illiterate. Or just pedophiles, going by Occam’s Razor.
These data quite clearly highlight the need for effective measures for increasing the waiting time for motherhood after attaining puberty among females and these effective strategies should be implemented in the context of their socio-economic, cultural and demographic backgrounds.

Study shows older mothers make smarter babies

Research says children of older mothers are smarter, taller, and stronger

I don’t think this means what people think it does.

Considering IQ is at least mostly genetic (like, 70% charitably), and child IQ is based on the maternal IQ (not paternal).
Considering high IQ women marry and have children later (and always have done, historically, the average age of marriage in fact used to be around 25, earlier was reckless from immaturity, later was also fine hence remarriages were also allowed).
Considering they invest more money and time into their children, which accounts for the non-genetic factors to boot.
I think those factors all combine that there’s a third variable. Innate maternal IQ.

The age isn’t causing the intelligence in mothers to pop into existence out of nowhere.

Those women are intelligent to begin with, they delayed the gratification of family until they could support one and we’re seeing those women, responsible women, being compared with the spawn of the irresponsible and stupid.
Older mothers (very old, not, like, 30) either have very healthy babies or very sickly ones, it isn’t clear-cut always bad or always good. Either there are serious problems (a bad pregnancy, often ending in miscarriage) or there aren’t (a good one, biologically the same as a younger woman). Underage girls or young women also have a higher rate of miscarriage (and death) and disease/defects, although this is almost never mentioned. Nature evolved this for good reason, you can’t do things until their time and the reproductive system needs to stabilize hence this result shouldn’t be a surprising correlate. Your ovaries don’t start misfiring suddenly at an arbitrary age (although men, from the way they constantly produce sperm, DO have this high-mutation problem affecting the health and longevity of kids). The males of the manosphere, where you won’t see these studies covered because they’re bluepill pussies, have a lot of ridiculous notions of the female reproductive anatomy and function (e.g. they still talk about hymens like a seal on a tin can and making women bleed as a good thing). They can’t explain this stuff, in part because they think it’s “not their issue/problem”, “not science” and just “ew gross blood n stuff”, while expecting to be taken seriously as adults with internet access on reproductive topics. Naturally, if we try to educate them (you should be paying for this information), they’ll ignore you or call you wrong, because you ‘re a woman. Why would you know how a woman’s body works? That’s just silly.

oh no oh dear hides facepalm double

It isn’t as if I’m trying to give them advice on ED, is it? (Although many of them are porn addicts, the true cause of ED). Everyone has their subjects. Random myths about ovaries and scare-mongering about fertility (while telling men to have kids while on Death’s door) are unhelpful. These people dole out dangerous advice to men (life-ruining, if you look at the cost of raising a special needs child) and have such a lack of class they mock women for their fertility problems and blame them for having a medical condition like PCOS (as if men don’t have fertility problems, when men have more fertility problems in total, mostly impotence issues and getting it up caused/exacerbated by porn use).

On the Eugenic Problem aka Idiocracy Problem.

If you want smart people to have children, they aren’t going to do it at age 18, it isn’t our way and never has been, so you’d better get used to later pregnancies. You can’t shame people into ignoring biology, like the feminists pushing fat as sexy. People always left it ‘late’ compared to the modern welfare baby at 15 ‘standard’. It isn’t too late until you can’t have any or if you refuse to have kids and become a genetic suicide.

Older mothers pass risk to their child

http://uk.businessinsider.com/consequences-of-having-kids-late-in-life-2015-6?r=US

biology is sexist

/sarc

…Research has suggested that children born to older women are likely to have shorter lives. In a study of 200 years of demographic data about a large group of Swedes, mother’s age at birth was one of the most significant non-external factors affecting how long a person lived, along with the mother’s lifespan.

It’s no shock the genes a mother passes down will affect her child’s lifespan. But in addition to genes, mothers pass down a crucial cellular component called mitochondria. As Dr. Martin Wilding proposes in the journal Fertility and Sterility, published by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, children born from older mothers could receive compromised mitochondria in their cells — shortening their lives….

Men don’t get off the hook though. Past 40, they pass on higher risk of mental illness.