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.

Do NOT allow expecting mothers to juice

Do not allow expecting mothers to juice. All the Mommy blogs push it though, right?

http://www.sisterzeus.com/Abortif.htm
http://www.sisterzeus.com/vit_c_ab.html
They’ve been pushing Vitamin C at women so much I looked it up.
It’s added as a preservative to almost all food because it’s so ‘safe’.

“It might sound strange, but its true, this remedy has been passed around the feminist community since the 70’s, appearing in many grassroots publications, some of which are cited here. There are also numerous reports of women using it successfully from this era, I’ve heard many stories, but never saw any kind of documentation, which isn’t surprising in a time, where a woman’s right to choose an abortion and have access to safe legal abortion services was just being won.”

Great for ye olde days of gang rape though. Useful if the Red Army comes around town.
Abortion does make sense where continuing would kill the mother so there is an ethical grey area e.g. ectopic.
I acknowledge that. We also must know what kills a baby so all mothers know to AVOID it. This is why keeping women ignorant leaves them vulnerable to such evil. Parts of nature hate us. Wiccans are imbeciles.

This is why I don’t supplement liposomal Vitamin C, as I suggested for OLDER people.

“The scientists who conducted the research, Samborskaia and Ferdman came to the conclusion that high doses of Ascorbic Acid appeared to increase estrogen levels which contributed to the interruption of an otherwise normal pregnancy. 20 women who approached doctors requesting an abortion participated in the study. Research was conducted by ob/gyn L.I. Ivanyuta. The women ranged from 20 to 40 years of age. The article does not say if a positive pregnancy test was obtained from the participating women. We also don’t know how much ascorbic acid the women were given. They did however measure estrogen levels before and after treatment with ascorbic acid, finding that estrogen levels were higher after taking the ascorbic acid. Of the 20 women, 16 began menstrual type bleeding within 1 to 3 days from administration of ascorbic acid.”

It makes giving kids lemonade real sinister. Mountain Dew, Sunny D, the works.

“Vitamin C works to produce an unfavorable climate within the uterus so that the egg does not implant, or if implantation has already occurred, Vitamin C can weaken the fertilized ovum’s grip on the uterine wall. Possibly by stimulating estrogen, and interfering with progesterone. This also makes it useful as an emergency contraceptive, when taken before implantation occurs on the 6th day following ovulation. The hormone, progesterone is essential for pregnancy, its function is to prepare a nourishing bed for the fertilized egg, if there is not enough progesterone the uterus becomes less supportive to the egg. Which is desirable when the goal is to end pregnancy.”

Progesterone means pro-gestation. Anything that reduces that and/or increases oestrogen causes miscarriage, including xenoestrogens. BPA also causes genetic defects inc. Downs, and can cause abnormal egg development in a female fetus, which can go on to experience many miscarriages (modern rates?) and Downs children themselves.

Also NO parsley. Yes, it kill babies. Viva Italia some other time. Can be used to induce labour, ironically.

History will view the use of xenos as pure evil*. I think endometriosis is caused by it, like a poisoning. Explains the miscarriage common to it. Most common cause of infertility in women. Pure progesterone creams hard to come by, easier to patent a toxic variety close enough. Even pure creams can include preservatives that are oestrogenic!
Vegan love of vit C may cause vegan menopause, imho. Xenos also cause premature puberty in girls as young as ONE, especially seen in high-estro skin products used by American blacks and not found in African ones. Xenos (including hops in beer**) also cause a small penis and breast development in boys/men. This shit should be BANNED forever in all skincare vehicles (10x more potent, bypassing liver filter). The amount required (parts per billion) is rarely tested for but maintains estrogenic effect at this level. Parabens were disused in some products due to this. Others like SLS and phthalates also. It isn’t hype, it’s killing men/women hormonally and babies silently. A silent killer in shampoo, lotion, food etc. No wonder American rates of miscarriage are so high. Test ALL skin products for endocrine disruption, especially those that break down into it (XENOS), in rats. Xenos can bio-accumulate for decades in the body (heard of DDT?) and stay for decades too.
I share this hoping people won’t abuse the info.

*file under Molech

**how Anglos have gotten softer and softer and softer… literally and morally.

Synthetic perfume is also a xeno. Sorry. I’m sad about it too. They’re aiming this at teen girls and boys, who get fat. And in the case of girls, look sexual. The boys look twinkish. I’m sure the traffickers love that.

They blame kids for being fat when they’re hormonally drugged from seemingly everywhere. They cannot lose weight!
The environment is too polluted!

Phyto-estrogen can bind protectively and reduce the capacity of xeno to attach. This is limited. It’s less potent but still oestrogenic and thus reduces progesterone. Can detox from the body in a matter of days since it’s natural.

Putting women off breeding

I wonder if white women were more likely to be denied?

For once, racial data not gathered? …or published?

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/mar/03/women-in-labour-being-refused-epidurals-official-inquiry-finds#maincontent

She added: “We have spoken with many women who have been so traumatised by their experience of childbirth that they are considering ending what would otherwise be wanted pregnancies.

Socialism cares!

“Staffing shortages may be an issue but we also know women may experience gatekeeping by healthcare professionals and be told labour ‘is meant to be hard work’,” she added.

remember when they called nuns pure evil for refusing unwed mothers pain relief?

The child is more likely to die if the mother is stressed. Same with the mother.

 “It is both inhumane and discriminatory.”

But in January, a Sunday Telegraph investigation claimed some women were being denied epidurals because of what the paper said was a “cult of natural childbirth” in some NHS Trusts.

Cult of saving money. That’s torture.

Dr David Bogod, a council member of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and a consultant at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS trust with a special interest in obstetrics, said midwives sometimes wrongly told women there was a narrow window in which they could have an epidural: when the cervix is between 4cm and 6cm dilated. “But it’s never too early and never too late [for an epidural], if that’s what a woman wants,” he said.

I’ve heard that too.

You can have it later to relieve the mother so the baby doesn’t have a heart attack.

Bogod said that “there’s reasonable, anecdotal evidence that some midwives will use the excuse that an anaesthetist isn’t available if they themselves feel an epidural isn’t appropriate for the woman based on their own beliefs around intervention-free births”.

Sadists. They lie.

“The national standard is that a woman should be given an epidural within 30 minutes to one hour of asking for it, except in exceptional circumstances,” he said. “Labour wards are amply supplied with anaesthetists and so that isn’t an unreasonable target for us.

They paid for the service. Never trust socialists.

“The commonest reason for women to be denied an epidural is because of a lack in midwife numbers: we have a drastic national shortage of midwives,” he added. The NHS in England is short of the equivalent of almost 2,500 full-time midwives.

Train natives.

Bogod pointed to the scandals at Telford’s Princess Royal and the Royal Shrewsbury hospitals, and Morecambe Bay, where babies and mothers died preventable deaths at least partly because midwives had a focus on making women giving birth without medical intervention.

Primitive. That’s murder.

And you wonder why married women aren’t having as many kids?

Maternal mortality has gone UP in America, for example.

And if it’s born healthy

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/mar/04/uk-in-danger-of-failing-a-generation-says-child-health-study

English teenagers are increasingly likely to be injured in youth violence and the UK is lagging behind other European countries on measures including infant mortality, according to UK-wide research into the state of child health by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.

Our NHS.

Socialism makes the problems WORSE.

It found that the health of children who live in deprived areas is largely worse than those in more prosperous places and that inequalities have widened since 2017.

Possible but non-white kids have worse health outcomes in general, especially mixed.

The college said the slide in conditions was rarely seen in developed countries

Because we imported them and their shitty genetics.

Infant mortality here only higher in POLAND (who also have been putting women off breeding).

Yet UK infant mortality rates have stalled, and in England they actually got worse between 2016 and 2017. For a high-income nation such as ours, that should be a major wakeup call.”

Importing midwives from low IQ nations like Jamaica may be to blame!?

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2019/08/18/white-immigrants-are-still-r-types/

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2019/08/22/observe-the-r-type-quietly-panic/

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2019/06/22/population-data/

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2019/11/15/tiger-mom-hypergamy-poland-sub-fertility/

Just read that last one if you’re impatient.

Polish women in FACT are not traditional mother types, they’re r-types. If you look at EU-collected data on Polish women and their real opinions in surveys.

Are kids of teenage mothers dumber?

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0167395

The creeps are wrong again.

Teenage motherhood has been associated with a wide variety of negative offspring outcomes including poorer cognitive development. In the context of limitations of previous research, this paper assesses the contemporary relevance of this finding. In this study we investigate the long-term cognitive status (IQ) among 21 year adult offspring born to teenage parents using the Mater University Study of Pregnancy- a prospective birth cohort study, which recruited all pregnant mothers attending a large obstetrical hospital in Brisbane, Australia, from 1981 to 1983. The analyses were restricted to a sub-sample of 2643 mother-offspring pair. Offspring IQ was measured using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test at 21 year. Parental age was reported at first clinic visit. Offspring born to teenage mothers (<20 years) have -3.0 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): -4.3, -1.8) points lower IQ compared to children born to mothers ≥20 years and were more likely to have a low IQ (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.7; 95% CI: 1.3, 2.3). Adjustment for a range of confounding and mediating factors including parental socioeconomic status, maternal IQ, maternal smoking and binge drinking in pregnancy, birthweight, breastfeeding and parenting style attenuates the association, though the effect remains statistically significant (-1.4 IQ points; 95% CI: -2.8,-0.1). Similarly the risk of offspring having low IQ remained marginally significantly higher in those born to teenage mothers (OR 1.3; 95% CI: 1.0, 1.9).

In contrast, teenage fatherhood is not associated with adult offspring IQ, when adjusted for maternal age. Although the reduction in IQ is quantitatively small, it is indicative of neurodevelopmental disadvantage experienced by the young adult offspring of teenage mothers. Our results suggest that public policy initiatives should be targeted not only at delaying childbearing in the population but also at supporting early life condition of children born to teenage mothers to minimize the risk for disadvantageous outcomes of the next generation.

 The small but significant decrease in offspring IQ combined with other challenges often faced by children of teenage mothers may contribute to increased risk of poor educational performance and intergenerational transfer of psychosocial and health disadvantage. 

aka poor fitness among r-types

corroborates forensics in the history of anglos

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00766097.2015.1119392#

Their bodies haven’t finished developing.

Maternity leave good for children, misogynists

The mothers are far from being selfish* and lazy.

(*Expecting the man to make the money, his gender role?)

Click to access Brooks-Gunn_Daycare.pdf


Show me the equivalent study on fathers, please. [TLDR Tender Years is true.**]

Past nine months, needs more research to say it’s bad (the positive claim, burden of proof).

**You’d expect this loss of the father is survivable since men died all the time of war, hunting and disease yet we’re demonstrably still here. 

Note for idiots: Survivable is not desirable. Hume is disappointed in you.

Ideally, women should take maternity leave, if the couple can afford to. Whether she does or not is her husband’s business (read: not yours).

No wedding, no opinion

What do you think a marriage is?

Seriously for a moment.

 

What do you think a marriage entitles you to, gentlemen?

Legally.

These degenerates want the rights of a husband without the responsibilities.

Er….

No?

YOU’RE ENTITLED TO NOTHING.

YOU SHOULD GET NOTHING.

GOOD DAY, DEGENERATE.

What did you expect?

It’s like if I didn’t buy Apple stock ten years ago and sent them an invoice backdated of all the money they owed me. How the fuck does America expect this shit works?

It doesn’t work. What are you doing? You’re breaking marriage. Literally.

Ya gotta invest before you expect.

You reap as you sow.

If you don’t sow, you get nothing.

THAT SHIT IS BIBLICAL AND BASIC AS HELL.

K-selection, bitches. It’s in the Little Red Hen! Where were you, Tyrone?

That is not your wife.

Expecting the property rights of a head of a household is invalid. You didn’t buy the house. You didn’t step a toe in that direction. Actually, given ample time and opportunity, you ran in the opposite direction and deserted the prospect. Decisions will be made without you, snowflake.

Black guy abandons woman, expects to have a say.

What?

It’s like claiming disability because they suffer and you suffer as a human too. Not how it works, snowflake. You can’t apply something so broadly that all sperm is magically a baby and something you considered trash can be back-dated as ownership rights based on your present feelings (and over the person who did make it, kept it alive and does actually own it, had medical responsibility this whole time and didn’t neglect it).

It’s like the SJWs crazy enough to count a fully-consented sex act they regret as rape, it’s the exact same reasoning and it’s shit.

Present doesn’t alter past. Anything less is insanity.

A marriage is not just a piece of paper and has FA to do with wuv, sorry, love.

It’s an investment document.

She makes babies, you get an opinion.

That’s IT.

HOLY SHIT, AMERICA.

Just when I think you can’t get any worse.

It shouldn’t list father on the birth certificate but husband. Maybe a separate section if it’s a rape baby. Because guess who’s paying for all the upkeep, food, rent, medical expenses?

Does the mother own his sperm that went in the trash all those years too? Irrational claims go both ways.

There’s no logical way to sell this. They are being anti-science.

You didn’t make that baby. You didn’t want that baby.

Why do you complain that you can’t get something you rejected?

The entitlement, I can smell it from here. What a cesspit.

Can women claim all a man’s earnings from fucking him once? [no, contrary to reports with lacking citation, wife is a distinct assortment of rights, if you aren’t married and try to claim common law marriage here, we’re smart and civilized enough to know there’s no such thing, you must consciously consent to the legal structure, no slow slides without paperwork or anyone could claim to have lived with you and slept with you]

Seriously now, consider how much more badly this will go for men if you allow it to continue. So you don’t marry a bitch but she still gets all the legal entitlements of a wife without even a prenup.

You can only get a prenup on a wedding. No wedding, no nuptials, no prenup.

Fucking r-types reee. You wanted your no-investment lifestyle, you KEEP your no-returns lifestyle.

You can’t retroactively own something.

Basic property rights.

Deadbeats get nothing. You shouldn’t have left. You should’ve gotten married. Your mistake, individually, we shouldn’t break the legal system of thousands of years for chocolate snowflake.

Men ejaculate into socks everyday, they don’t own a baby.

From a purely biological perspective (ya gonna deny biology now?) you didn’t grow something for nine months putting your life at risk, and then again to take the medical risk of death to bring it into the world. It’s like Loki’s gambit here, the sperm you gave away are no longer yours, fertile or not. You can’t take anything away.

Landing in a sock or ending up in an egg. A seed on rock or fertile soil.

He’s a sperm donor, they also revoke their legal rights, any they might have had.

Consequences, bitches! You put yourself in an unmarried situation!

Are you also gonna insist you get rights back (they’re not refundable, it’s like women wanting back their period eggs) for all the trashed sperm since your balls dropped? Pretty sure those were abandoned for at least days too.

Legally you don’t have a leg to stand on.

Do you want all the cells of your faeces and urine and sweat (skin cells) back too? You can’t privilege rights over one abandoned cell to another. Not how the law works. This whole thing is absurd.

The biological proof racking up showing how a baby actually grows in their mother, is itself a growing field.

These guys sound like SJWs.

Reproduction is not equal. It’s the woman’s investment. She owns it because legally, it’s her body. You only get a right over a woman’s reproductive system when you marry her. Simple, you’d think?

Her body, her choice is a legal and medical point. It is misapplied to contraception. You don’t own her periods either. If men could carry babies, the woman wouldn’t own it since the carrier is the one taking all the medical risk (including death) and hence, all the responsibility. He doesn’t own a single one of her cells, he didn’t marry her.

Make your own baby, in your own body, then it’ll belong to you!

Seriously, if men did that the law would then be on their side. If you risk death to create life, you deserve it.

As it is because they’re too scared to develop that technology and actually use it on themselves? Men don’t make babies and so don’t own babies unless married to the mother.

You can’t grow a child in an artificial womb unattached to a body, it would be stunted (fetal psychology, it needs the carrier for more than blood and nutrients, your knowledge of science is woefully out of date). Women are vastly complex baby machines, men just switch it on.

I don’t get to turn up to a gold mine on land I might’ve bought but didn’t and grab some because it’s.. there now. Nah-uh, there’s a process. Opportunities are windows because you can always see them but you can’t get to them anymore once they close. You passed it up. You and only you.

A product of adultery doesn’t belong to the cheating dick. It’s the guy who owns the womb (or the original womb-owner if single).

Aren’t they libertarians, usually? They know how property rights work. Someone hunting on your land is trespassing, that isn’t their deer. It doesn’t belong to the person who sees what was made by the land and selfishly wants it.

“My baby”, says the deadbeat. Nope!

Unfit parent too. Women also avoid marrying them too.

And note the narcissism often used in these cases like it’s a toy to get revenge instead of a person with best interests.

“Our child”, says the husband. Depriving a child of its human right to a family life with the happy adopted arrangement is abuse, an abuse of its human rights. I hope it grows up and sues him, the kid would win. He was spiting the child and ruining its future to hurt the mother and prove a petty point, how evil. If I won’t keep you, they can’t either? 

What did you do for those nine months plus time after? Nothing. You didn’t even marry her pregnant, the time limit long since passed. You passed over your right to an opinion. Ask any traditionalist. It’s better off elsewhere, the mother is correct. The father is an abandonment case. You don’t get to leave a kid alone then wonder why you can’t visit them like a dog in the kennels after a long holiday.

It reminds me of when Emma Watson abandoned a kitten then came back in the guy’s life ages later to get her cat back. He told her to take a hike and she did, now if she knew she was taking the piss… what’s the excuse? There isn’t one.

Biology is starkly clear.

The single sperm gamete that eventually (time delay a week to conception) made that child was abandoned (legal rights revoked, you do not own your medical waste) and you don’t have any claim to the maternal cells they fused with to produce a zygote AND implant, the first stage of a baby. Men have nothing to do with actual, biological reproduction, it all happens inside the mother. A child is genetically mostly their mother (X-chromosomes have more material, her blood, various substances from her body in utero including vitamins and minerals leeched from her bones, stem cells exchanged with maternal cells into the foetus including brain cells etc.) so nah. This isn’t equal.

The idea men reproduce is a biological myth. Produce what, exactly? They shed a gamete, like a skin cell. In number and value (nothing). This gamete has no medical risk associated and will be shed in nocturnal emissions regardless of choice. It legally counts as human medical waste and men dispose of it as such. Female seahorses don’t reproduce either. If you want to be very technical about it. The production event has nothing to do with them. Biologically or psychologically. A virgin woman can technically impregnate herself and theoretically reproduce asexually (no sexual act in that case, which is one definition) with sperm in a condom in the street. The autistic focus on information fails under scrutiny too. To define by DNA when there are more things being discovered everyday (inc. RNA and mtDNA) is essentially calling a baby one type of one single set of half a code, corrupted, that cannot support itself without a case (uterus) and has no platform to “live” (mother’s blood, presence) or in this example, read/be read. Is a CD with half a human DNA code, no case, no drive, broken (mutations repaired/corrected by the mother’s DNA), a baby? Any scientific person would ridicule this outdated legal interpretation. Your errant sperm entitles you to nothing. Your hand is not your fingerprint, police can’t take your hand. Your brain is not your IQ, schools own none of your brain despite adding to your IQ. No transfer of ownership. Your words are not your tongue, nobody can cut out your tongue for singing their song. Non sequiturs are fallacies. A woman’s period gamete shedding (women shed their gametes not-living too) doesn’t entitle her to a living baby either. She’s gotta make it herself and produce the life. It takes about a year. That is a job.

J.O.B. That is work. Are you Communists now? Are you entitled to the labour of others?

The quality of life is something only the female of our species can give, to date (and it doesn’t always work, as in miscarriage). Is the man responsible for that too? Can a man miscarry? Exactly.

Life is the organism, completed in its maturation to independent life (growth, birth and infanthood), it’s very clear biology and you can read Darwin. He wrote enough books on it.

Tell me, in the pure data example, who gives life? As such, to who does it belong?

Data without a computer is nothing. The computer also has its own data to work the hardware or the input is again, worthless.

Humans reproduce sexually as a rule, we evolved our gamete system and behaviour around this rule. There are exceptions and it gets weird. The baby itself, if grown and born, would still die as an infant without the mother’s milk. The father does fuck-all again. Nature says baby belongs to Mommy. Get over it.

Women have childbearing, stay in your gender role lane. A woman giving you a gun doesn’t own the medal for all the people you shot with it. That would be ridiculous.

Is DNA in a petri dish a baby? Legally, we’ve been over this and I don’t like it as a situation but I comprehend how it works as an exception. Important difference for the triggered idiots who think their feelings should make fact and Onan’s spilled seed should be counted a baby by law in the census. Miscarried fetuses don’t count as babies either, no infanticide there, if even the mother doesn’t own early stage, pre-birth as a separate legal entity to her body, you certainly have no fucking say, Mr. pre-conception.

Preconceived = wrong. Onan didn’t go by the DNA/seed rule, it was marriage that made the father by law. He didn’t actually marry the woman he was screwing and therefore knew it was wrong to get her pregnant since it wouldn’t be his. In a plot twist, God counted them as married by contextual technicality. Doesn’t change the rules, does it?

Pre-conception, your role = no baby. Point on the doll where the scientism hurt you.

What is the value of a DNA test in this case? A test of what, there was no acknowledged baby in the conception process or via marriage ceremony later even after conception. He didn’t claim his rights. Be ye fruitful and don’t run away from the tree?

You breathe in DNA fragments from people on public transport, so what?

Microbes on them or from inside them are DNA too.

You eat DNA fragments from the chef in your food. Did you steal or was it normal shedding?

They say we should sell licenses to reproduce. Yeah, we do.

S’called a marriage license.

Although technically it’s a claim on reproduction (the process) the lady does. A male claim. Male proposal? And the lady has to accept it (#womb4rent) or it doesn’t count. Tell me, where was the offer in that case? He didn’t want a baby then and should have no rights over a baby he didn’t want in the present. If he didn’t want to be a father genetically, don’t fuck a fertile woman. It’s very simple, that’s how babies are made. Get a vasectomy too.

The child deserves a better life with a father that wants it and gives a shit.

And the precedent will mean, if truly applied, that rapists have ownership of the baby the woman (or little girl) didn’t consent to produce, over her husband’s/own right to abort it. What in tarnations. A rapist has no paternal rights. You can’t take all that carrier agency and medical risk away on a flimsy what if emotional fallacy pretext.

And what happens when two men screw? Do they get to ask for their sperm back?

If this case stands, spermicide is homicide. Literally. That’s how stupid.

Are you sure, America? Is this the future you want?

Sperm isn’t life. Neither are eggs. A zygote, then implanted is life. 

You might notice that’s the woman’s job, 100%.

Do you want donated blood back too because it ended up in a rich person? Bloody hell.

The “baby killer” rhetoric they try to pull is so empty, like fathers never murder their maturing, born children or push a woman down the stairs to cause a miscarriage (not the mother’s choice). I don’t think the mother approves either in those cases and I don’t think that changes the fact. Any of them. So male choice to end pregnancy in another body – fine by pigs, but female choice – Satan? They even try to pull this manipulative bullshit off when the baby in question has nothing to do with them, they didn’t contribute anything, even sperm, they try to control the situation on principle that they want ownership control of a stranger. What principle? Slavery? If a man does something I disapprove of, can I physically curtail his rights to stop him? What if it causes him medical harm? Ah, but no convenient foot-stamping guilt trips for the abortion-loving fuckers when they’re male, eh? You do know the Pill is an abortion chemical, right? Chemical abortion is the earliest kind. The Pill is an abortifacient, that’s how it works biologically. It’s the earliest form of abortion. So if you’ve been screwing women on the Pill and you’re happy about that, you’ve aborted your own children by your own logic, at some point? There was a fused zygote. If you were responsible at the fusion… “Men” even feed a woman the morning-after pill or abortive herbs and claim they were morally right to do it! No, there’s a poisoning case, domestic abuse for concealment of forced medication, acting as a doctor without a license and then the actual abortion thing ending a baby’s life itself. Are they not baby murderers?

Crickets from the guys whining about agency.

Worse than that, monsters. Imagine the uproar, the other way around. They already complain about male rape enough.

Considering sperm as usable materials wouldn’t even work.

Since men have issue with topics like this, imagine you threw away some metal-based trash and someone else used it to build something great over nine months and it damaged their health to do so. They sell it to someone who loves it. That’s a beautiful thing and better than abortion, remember. But does that person owe you the thing you threw out and wanted no claim (responsibility) over?

Not one single wonky chair leg to stand on.

And I would bet money – he STILL won’t marry her, even for the statistical good of the child. Yeah, let’s help that guy! Stefan’s too scared to bring that up in his lectures (to women) and add two to two and make four. A family is a unit under marriage. Any claims of “she’s taking my family away” should be met with “where’s the marriage certificate?” Your? Family? Really? No.

Words have meanings.

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.

Maternal IQ fact supported by genetics

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/children-intelligence-iq-mother-inherit-inheritance-genetics-genes-a7345596.html

A lot of bitter old men have been butthurt over this. Lemme explain.
Hey, you wanted genetic studies of IQ, this is part of HBD. If you only want ones that make men look good, you aren’t being scientific. Become a feminist and quit crying because facts don’t support your feels.

eric ooh aah umm uhuh play dumb smile laugh evil grin

When has the manosphere ever distorted scientific findings?

It’s been known for decades that child IQ is usually higher correlated with maternal IQ. This isn’t one study’s opinion. It’s hundred of thousands of datapoints. It’s a fact, or as close to one as child psychology gets.

The cerebral cortex is also highly implicated in what we think of as higher functions and especially IQ measures (broadly, all types of IQ). There are also racial differences, however, the findings are more within-family e.g. they don’t differ as much between men/women as you’d expect.

There are different reasons given for this maternal IQ jump but since it’s psychology, they don’t use genetic, they seek social explanations primarily. This study is important because it plugs that gap. Previously, it was considered as part of the tender years hypothesis, which that article mentions, i.e. that women are usually primary caregiver, hence raise the IQ of the child simply with their presence. Were that the case, men could boost their contributions simply by becoming stay at home fathers or (gasp) being a co-parent (the technical term for just sticking around, being with their family) of their own spawn.

This study really makes the abandoning fathers look atrocious. As they deserve. Some of the non-fathers are getting butthurt that they can’t blame Mommy for everything, which I won’t even touch as a topic because that requires a professional by the hour.

As it is, the harder science always wins. There isn’t the social science window for BS here, so that’s pretty much out of the window. That’s why they’re so embittered, their stupidity is misreading it and they can’t dance around it with lies.

What the study says: IQ is genetically matrilineal, supporting social findings. All of them.

What the study does NOT say: men are stupid.

crying laughter lmao

But it’s amazing how it brings the stupid ones out.

These guys are often trying to lecture their fellow dunces on IQ as if they understand it, like misinterpreting what an average is (stats 101) or falsely claiming “men” are higher in IQ (if you took the average man off the street, he’s likelier to be a retard, stop embarrassing yourselves).

They’re faux intellectuals, so I’m enjoying writing this up. I really trigger them.

Due to the matrilineal nature of genetics (women conceive and grow the foetus, duh) and the nature of genetics itself (the X chromosome contains more material, a fact I have previously mentioned) everyone inherits more cortical genetic instruction from their mother’s side, possibly all (due to the so factual it’s directly manipulable deactivation this study discusses). Women also give birth and we all know infant brain size can only grow as large as the female can pass. It’s all female, all the way up!

Men don’t need to be at the epicentre of everything – ESPECIALLY CHILDBIRTH.

omg really wtf go away no audrey

Although watching them struggle to take credit for this one thing that’s ours, that’s truly feminine, has been an exercise in patience.

I can’t believe they’re questioning so much reality. Those guys are not redpills.
What, do men conceive? Give birth? Raise their kids? I wish on that last one. Truly, I do.

It’s a very precise study about the nature of intelligence’s inheritance. Not what the organism does with it. Nor does it suggest how intellect potentiates, develops or who ‘has’ more. Intellect isn’t something you have, as these idiots claim with their fake G ratings (childhood scores do not count as an adult, I repeat, childhood scores do not count as an adult) but intelligence is something you do, something you use. Not a trophy you can waggle in someone’s face like a MENSA card, it is more fluid and never something to rest on. Those are a faux appeal to authority anyway, only useful to teachers and employers. They want to get all the status of doing something, but they’re lazy. So they brag about a single pop quiz, which is all most IQ tests are. Which sex, when married with kids, works more total hours per week? Clue: not the one who eschews the bulk of childcare and household duties and spends the bulk of their office time goofing off online. It’s the one that tries to have it all.

This is a very direct finding about a genetic sequence, how it activates and how much cellular volume directly results.

No, it isn’t up for debate. It is the opposite of personal, it’s completely objective. This isn’t political at all because we all grew inside a woman, whether you unconsciously hate her or not. The study said nothing about female children distinct from males, it didn’t study that. Talk about a red herring, those who dare claim such simply dumb. Liars to boot, derailing onto something no one mentions, but let’s stick with what is factually obvious.

Welcome to science, not scientism. We don’t give a flying fuck about your feelings of emasculation.

What you inherit from your mother doesn’t make you less of a man, mothers are no less human as implied, and intelligence is not a ‘male’ thing how ever many fake quotes you post beside Einstein’s face.

If you think that makes me sexist, when all I did was explain, please get your head examined. Seriously.

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.