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.

Stillbirth in black/white mixed couples

1.6 million examples, can’t blame the group size this time?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/20235877/

Results: The analysis included approximately 1.6 million live births and 1749 stillbirths. In the unadjusted model, compared with two white parents, black/black and black/white couples had a significantly higher risk of fetal death. When all demographic, social, biological, genetic, congenital, and procedural risk factors except gestational age and birth weight were included, the odds ratios (OR) were all still significant. Black/black couples had the highest level of risk (OR 2.11, CI 1.77-2.51), followed by black mother/white father couples (OR 2.01, CI 1.16-3.48), and white mother/black father couples (OR 1.84, CI 1.33-2.54). Virtually all of the higher risk of fetal death was explainable by higher rates of low birth weight and prematurity.

Conclusions: Mixed race black and white couples face higher odds of prematurity and low birth weight, which appear to contribute to the substantially higher demonstrated risk for stillbirth. There are likely additional unmeasured factors that influence birth outcomes for mixed race couples.

but wait, there’s more!

https://bmcpregnancychildbirth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12884-014-0404-0

Results

53,293 deliveries occurred during the time period, of which 329 resulted in a stillbirth (6.2 per 1,000 births). Compared to White women, non-White ethnicity was associated with a doubling of the odds of stillbirth (aOR for Black women 2.15, 95% CI 1.56-2.97; and for South Asian women 2.33, 95% CI 1.42-3.83).

Obese women had a trend towards higher odds of stillbirth compared to women of recommended BMI (aOR 1.38, 95% CI 0.98-1.96), though this was not significant (p 0.07). < aka no excuse there

Both higher parity (≥2 compared to para 1) and hypertension were associated with a higher odds of stillbirth (parity ≥2 aOR 1.65, 95% CI 1.13-2.39; hypertension aOR 1.84, 95% CI 1.22-2.78) but there was no evidence that area deprivation or maternal age were independently associated with stillbirth in this population. < aka no excuse there either

There was some evidence of effect modification between ethnicity and obesity (p value for interaction 0.06), with obesity a particularly strong risk factor for stillbirth in South Asian women (aOR 4.64, 95% CI 1.84-11.70).

Conclusions

There was a high prevalence of stillbirth in this multi-ethnic urban population. The increased risk of stillbirth observed in non-White women remains after adjusting for other factors.

Our finding of possible effect modification between ethnicity and obesity suggests that further research should be conducted in order to improve understanding of the interplay between ethnicity, obesity and stillbirth.”

but you just said obesity was non-sig?

And the only reason to do so has now gone.

How is it that minority infants are still unhealthy if their parents are smoking less than White parents? This is probably due to genetics and environment as well. A Dutch study compared the various rates of smoking among different ethnicities/races, “Since maternal smoking during pregnancy is quite equally distributed among the ethnic populations, it does not contribute much to the observed differences in birthweight.”(34) That study compared native Dutch people and immigrants…..”

“….As one can see, the amount of stillbirths was higher for the interracial couples. This was especially true of White father/Black mother relationships, but the White mother/Black father rates were still far worse than the rates of stillbirth for White couples. The outcomes for mulatto infants was at the detriment of the surveyed White population.(10)

What are the specifics to this horrible process? For this, we have to understand that having mixed genetic ancestry through mtDNA and yDNA perpetuates this happening. Let’s look at one of the best studies that has been published on this subject: “Divergent Patterns of Mitochondrial and Nuclear Ancestry Are Associated with the Risk for Preterm Birth.” This study investigated the unusually high rates of preterm birth among African Americans: “Haplogroup-defining polymorphisms are not merely markers of ancestry, and have consequences for mitochondrial function, including the regulation of mitochondrial gene expression.”(20)

Some might be surprised to know that many African Americans have large amounts of European ancestry. The European ancestry that African Americans have was distributed from White males when slavery was still legal.(20) To put it another way, having ancestry from vastly different ancestors contributes to these genetic predispositions. It is necessary to demonstrate this with a principal component analysis. The turquoise dots below represent the African population. As one can see, the African American population is represented by a long cline between European American (CEU) and African (YRI) samples. (24)

(Price, 24)

The majority of mitochondrial haplogroups (mtDNA) that African Americans have are African, since these come from African women originally, “… individuals with L, U6, or U5b1 haplogroup mtDNA and primarily African nuclear ancestry were defined as having low levels of divergent ancestry, whereas individuals with non-African haplogroups and high degrees of African nuclear ancestry had high levels of divergent ancestry.”(20) These researchers looked at any potential confounding variables that would skew results for the African American population. They examined a number socioeconomic variables such as years of school taken, income, etc. According to the researchers, “There was no detected statistical association between divergent ancestry and any of these factors.” (21)”

“But White people aren’t marrying out as much as other ethnic groups. Therefore, in the rare instance that a White person has a non-White partner, it is unlikely that these interracial couples are being treated in a less-preferable way by their families:

“…Whites are somewhat less willing to marry and bear children interracially than to date interracially. These attitudes and behaviors are related to warmth toward racial outgroups, political conservatism, age, gender, education, and regionThird, White women are likely to approve of interracial relationships for others but not themselves, while White men express more willingness to engage in such relationships personally, particularly with Asians.

However, neither White men nor White women are very likely to actually engage in interracial relationships. Thus, positive global attitudes toward interracial relationships do not translate into high rates of actual interracial cohabitation or marriage despite the fact that most White Americans (especially White females) aren’t interested in being in a relationship with a non-White person. (5)

In fact, different races/ethnicities do not experience the same amount of stress while they are in an interracial relationship. And this spans across different age groups, “The negative effects of interracial dating hold similarly for boys and girls and among White and Black youth. Interracial dating less negatively effects the depressive symptomatology of Hispanics, though, and actually appears to ‘protect’ Asian youth from depressive symptoms.”(9) Additionally, White women seem to get extremely stressed from being in a relationship between either Hispanic or Black males. Blacks in those relationships aren’t affected by stress in those relationships:”

“…Furthermore, non-Hispanic whites with non-Hispanic black spouses also fare worse than their interracially married peers with Hispanic spouses. In contrast, the self-reported health of married non-Hispanic blacks shows no significant difference between the interracially and the endogamously married.”(10)”

“Where this stress is coming from is another important aspect to consider: Even if there was a trend of neglect for interracial families/pregnancies, it would only be because of the natural inclination to find these relationships unacceptable, “Bias against interracial romance is correlated with self-reported feelings of disgust”. (12)This phenomenon can be observed via brain scans. There is an intense neural mechanism that is triggered when a person observes interracial couples,“Interracial couples elicit a neural disgust response among observers — as indicated by increased insula activation.”(12)In this case, this psychological disgust could be considered an extension of ethnic nepotism or association; if people are disgusted by these relationships it would imply that being involved with an individual of an out-group is not beneficial to the in-group. Because the effects of race mixing create unhealtheir children, this natural disgust is moral.  And as I have shown above, the most distinctive evidence proves this.”

At a neurological level, they’re viewed as animals, as sub-human, and even babies perceive race and avoid the out-group.

https://www.washington.edu/news/2016/08/17/study-finds-bias-disgust-toward-mixed-race-couples/

“That indicates that viewing images of interracial couples evokes disgust at a neural level,” Skinner said.

Participants were quicker to associate interracial couples with non-human animals and same-race couples with humans. That suggests that interracial couples are more likely to be dehumanized than same-race couples, the researchers write, and previous studies have shown that people tend to exhibit more antisocial behavior and are more likely to use aggression and even violence toward dehumanized targets.”

Nobody is jealous. Are we also jealous of the dirty toilets used in the study? Anyone can trade down. It isn’t hard. Black women trading down to omega white men is still a trade down. Race-mixers are always omegas.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10770563/Babies-show-racial-bias-study-finds.html

It’s biology, white people have nothing to do with your herpetic uterus.

https://www.theroot.com/nearly-half-of-black-women-have-herpes-1790878841

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4911234/How-herpes-cause-stillbirth-explain-Usher-s-saga.html

Yes, it’s relevant.

https://hyphenmagazine.com/blog/2010/05/study-finds-disturbing-std-rates-among-asian-americans

But we found that Asian American young women are at risk of high STDs.  For instance, Asian American women had a higher prevalence of STDs than White women in both 1995 (10.4% vs. 7.7) and 2001 (13.5% vs. 8.3%).  The incidence of STDs (not diagnosed with STDs in 1995, but developed STIs in 2001) among Asian American women was also higher than that of White women.” 

Magic Dirt? Doesn’t work.