Are kids of teenage mothers dumber?

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

Their bodies haven’t finished developing.

Link: London teachers encouraging teen pregnancy

It might be to make work for themselves.
It might be demographic.
Maybe they noticed they need more liberals to recruit or push into Higher Ed.

Notice the blame here? Notice the stupidity masquerading as sense?

Logically, let’s backtrack this.

Old enough to support it. Well, as Captain Capitalism has mentioned, the economic system is calculated against fertility, it is anti-natal and has been making women barren, because the time it takes for them to support a child eats into their reproductive window (as does education, which goes unmentioned).

Okay, so a woman needs support.
Gee, whose responsibility is that?
Let’s look to child health. They’re healthier with married parents. Better outcomes all around. Better citizens for society, less crime, better health and happiness.

So the woman needs to be a wife to have children young.

What needs to happen before this is possible?


Any guesses?

What’s wrong with this picture?

The boys are refusing to become men.

tyra take responsibility

They are acting like men but refusing to man up to the consequences they caused.

Boys need to stop having children they have no intention of supporting out of wedlock, expecting the state to pick up the expense. They should choose a wife and marry young. That is the male choice.

Yet these teachers, they’re foisting the burden on women, despite how older fathers are behind the rise in retarded children (look it up, damaged sperm and probability of psychiatric conditions).
Instead of telling the boys to stop fucking around, they’re pushing the responsibility of commitment on the girls, knowing the girls have no power to influence this outcome (it’s a decision that falls to the male) and knowing full well they’ll end up a burden on the State – and wouldn’t you know it, the State Education System!

p.s. the natural process of reproduction will never be removed from sex, it’s a myth; if you’re old enough for the responsibility of sex, you’re old enough to have a child. On the flipside, if you’re having a child because you’re expected to, or for external gain, abort the poor child and do them a favour, you’d be an awful parent.

p.p.s. I would not want a child with the economy about to tank, but that’s just me. A tiny dependent infant in a low income household with high time preference is practically the worst position I can think of in a zombie apocalypse.

p.p.p.s. We’re all parents, financially speaking. Our taxes are all paying for children. They aren’t our children. We’re tax-pumped cuckolds. That’s why we can’t afford our own children.

Giving little girls The Pill doesn’t change abortion rates, boosts STDs and sluttiness

Morning after pill linked to increase in sexually transmitted diseases, UK study shows;

Access to Emergency Contraception and its Impact on Fertility and Sexual Behavior;;jsessionid=AD0E4B2AA2CA5AF531506ECAAC23C7CB.f02t01

also reported on here:

from study abstract;

Moreover, individual-level analysis using the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth indicates that risky sexual behavior such as engaging in unprotected sex and number of sexual encounters increases as a result of over-the-counter access to EBC, which is consistent with the state-level STD findings.


I mean I literally just found the top three studies on the subject and they confirmed the obvious.
Handing out contraceptives like sweeties takes away responsibility, encouraging risk-taking behaviour. It’s economics.
More ’empowering’, ‘sex-positive’ ‘teachers’ pushing for moar moar always moar Sex Education (now suggesting porn use in the classroom), the more sex the children have. Just like those pesky conservatives predicted.

Under this system so-called sexual health officials go into classrooms and are now encouraging children as young as 12 years old to have sex. This is not only destroying childhood innocence but has given Britain the worst sexual health in the western world and the most one-parent families.

“Sex Ed” makes children sexual. paper

Don’t children have a human right to their innocence? Isn’t that what makes a child? Remember when teachers used to protect little girls and boys, instead of grooming them for ideological ends?

9% say it is never appropriate to raise the issue of pornography in a school setting.

Commence weeping for humanity.

Push for explicit Sex Education goes against reason

…With vested interests and without scientific evidence one has to look at their proposals using commonsense. The UK has had school sex education of an increasingly aggressive kind for the past forty years. Despite that, our teenage pregnancy rate remains the highest in western Europe, while STDs, sexual coercion and also depression have soared. If sex education was the answer, it would have answered by now….


Article: Liberal Sex Education and Rational Opposition

article here;

Sexual Education is often a go-to topic used by liberals to attack conservatives as being unreasonable and uneducated. The cliché of the sexually lacking ignorant Christian opposition is well known. It is equally accepted as truth that people, in general, were repressed and unhappy until liberal sexual liberation flooded the cultural mindset and freed them all. The argument over abstinence – only education implies that the only choice parents have is to accept whatever sexual education is presented or hope their kids don’t have sex. The problem, however, is not in the nature of sexual education, but the agenda behind it.

In a piece mocking conservative opposition to sexual education beginning in kindergarten, defended the program stating, “…students will receive age-appropriate information about wellness, anatomy, puberty, and sexual health that’s tailored for every grade.” This is used to demonstrate that clearly conservatives are being irrational about the whole thing. Why would anyone oppose discussing wellness, puberty and sexual health that are “appropriate” for each grade? What does modern psychology think appropriate is? Psychology Today, in an article titled Is Your Child’s Sexual Behavior Normal? states, “…the vast majority of children, from a young age, derive enjoyment from genital manipulation… As long as children are nurtured through this time and taught to cherish their sexuality without flaunting or exposing it indiscriminately, it can be a healthy experience for the child.”, a website reporting to prevent sexual abuse of children, openly discusses children under age 5 enjoying sexual activity with peers.

The same Psychology Today magazine defines pedophilia as a combination of abnormal sex hormones and possibly experiencing sexual abuse as a child. It even implies witnessing sexuality may cause the potential pedophile to imitate. It opines, “The prognosis for pedophilia is difficult to determine. For pedophiles, these longstanding sexual fantasies about children can be very difficult to change.” At no point does the liberal mindset behind both concepts connect the dots to see how aggressively asserting children hold valid and equal – to – adult standards of sexuality and pedophilia could be associated.

As Breeanne Howe discusses in an article, Planned Parenthood recently engaged in discussing Sadomasochism, bondage and other “kinky sex” with a young girl. While there has been outrage over this specific and controversial event, in general liberalism has no moral opposition to the concept. Writing in 2012 about the book Fifty Shades of Grey, Debby Herbenick, a sexual health educator at the Kinsey Institute, defended BDSM(Bondage/Discipline/Dominance/Submission/Sadism/Masochism) stating: “Like many, many other sexual behaviors, BDSM is part of a normative sexual experience that feels healthy and enjoyable to many people[.]”

Dan Savage, a well-known liberal sex advice columnist tweeted in response to Breeanne Howe’s post: “@breeannehowe seeking out kinky sex in the absence of info about consent, reality vs. fantasy, etc. That can have disastrous consequences.” and  “Some young people are into BDSM. Shouldn’t they have access to info about safe BDSM practices?” Just as Richard Dawkins stated in 2013 that his own sexual contact with an adult when he was a child was not harmful [DS: ???!] and described the perpetrator as expressing “mild pedophilia”, Savage tweets in defense of Planned Parenthood stating: “…some kids are kinky. If you talked to kinksters you would hear from kids who were tying themselves up at 13…” [DS: No. Anecdotes aren’t evidence either.]

The driving issue is not whether adults should participate in BDSM or if it is right or wrong. It is ironic that the “rape culture” obsessed left would be so enthusiastic about sexual practices that are driven by the domination and intentional application of pain to the sexual partner often involving violent and humiliating actions. But, as in all consensual sexual activity, freedom does not restrict this with adults. The underlying problem is that the acceptance of this activity as being part of adult sexuality is not enough for liberal thinkers. Because liberals focus on “educating” adults on the possibilities of sexuality, they assume dominion over children in the same area. This is what conservatives oppose.

Sexual education is always described as teaching kids about their bodies, diseases, protection and healthy sexuality, but as we can see liberals define those terms differently than an average person might. The agenda liberalism promotes is the idea that sexuality is fluid, amoral and absolutely natural in all of its forms. Children experience sexuality early and should be taught to embrace it fully without question. Parents should encourage exploration and as long as everyone is fully knowledgeable and protected the experiences thereafter will be wonderful and healthy. To deny children access to this is to set them up for dangerous experimentation, exploitation and emotional damage. The assumption is that because liberal thinking people view the world exclusively through sexuality, all people do and therefore everyone must be provided the fullest access to liberal sexual theory as an absolute.

The key piece that is missing, however, is personal responsibility. Where is the individual in all of this? Are we purely driven by various sexual impulses that can only be expressed through mindless action? Assuming every single theory on sexual development by liberal psychology is true, why are we bound to it? Liberalism seems to define itself by its lack of control over its environment.  In order to survive one must be surrounded by warnings, labels, education, protections and emotional support.  There is simply no concept that a person can choose differently.

Underlying the belief of child sexuality, pedophilia, and teenagers engaging in BDSM is that they simply have no other option available to them and must simply do the best with what they have been programmed with. Sexual education has always been driven by the demand that “kids will have sex anyway!”  In 2011 the Heritage Foundation linked to an article about teen sexual behavior stating: “The toll that early sexual activity takes on youths’ physical and emotional well-being and the association of abstinence with greater academic achievement all signal the importance of promoting the upward trend of abstinence through family, community, and public policy.” It also concluded that “…numerous studies have documented the impact that parents can have on their children’s sexual behavior. Youths whose parents discuss the consequences of sexual activity and monitor them more closely are less likely to be sexually active, and teens who feel that their parents would strongly disapprove of their becoming sexually active are less likely to contract a sexually transmitted infection.”

It is important to recognize that if a young person respects themselves and is actively building their future they are less likely to take risks or allow themselves to be devalued. Abstinence is not about denying a person sexuality, it is about empowering a person to choose sexuality with purpose. We are free to explore sexuality as we choose, but why can’t that include experiencing sex in a meaningful or spiritual way? Young people have the opportunity to define their entire lives based on how they view themselves in the present. Why do we assume sexuality is the only lens they have available to them? [Control.] Conservatives do not oppose sexual education, they just simply do not want their children, or children in general, exposed to the liberal version of it. Young people deserve to be more than the sum of their sexual impulses.”

Deny the teen pregnancy rate.
If you get ’em young, they’ll vote in welfare checks. Or consequence-free abortions. Abortions aren’t factored into pregnancy stats because then it’s too obvious.