I'm sorry, are you talking to me? Are you attempting to build an argument with evidence and logic and so it is something I should take as more than mere opinion, or is everything you have to say mere opinion?
You still need to get your act straight and let me know where you stand on the point of debate.
If she's old enough to bleed, she's old enough to breed, holmes?
Dial a cliche, hey its schraf!
There's lots of medical reasons that it's a bad idea for young girls to be having babies aside from the societal issues. They and their babies are at greater risk for all sorts of problems.
You mean based on stats from a study done in one year, pretty much in one culture has allowed you to determine there's LOTS of medical reasons its a bad idea for young girls to be having babies? Greater risks for ALL SORTS OF PROBLEMS?
Lets see, where to begin on deconstructing your usual hit and run approach to knowledge regarding sexuality...
1) The study used is limited in scope and results filtered through the assumption that it is bad and should be limited, rather than from objective attempts to understand risks associated with age and childbirth.
2) The article you quoted did not discuss mechanisms so as to remove societal effects and indeed goes on to discuss social issues regarding teens, not inherent age issues, such as...
Teens too often have poor eating habits, neglect to take their vitamins, and may smoke, drink alcohol and take drugs, increasing the risk that their babies will be born with health problems...
Pregnant teens are more likely to smoke than pregnant women over age 25. In 2002, 13.4 percent of pregnant teens ages 15 to 17 and 18.2 percent of those ages 18 to 19 smoked, compared to 11.4 of all pregnant women.2 Smoking doubles a woman’s risk of having a low-birthweight baby, and also increases the risk of pregnancy complications, premature birth and stillbirth.
Can you not see the vast difference between what you promised this article would show and what it in fact does show?
3) Skewed statistics are used to present more dramatic conclusions...
girls under age 15 who gave birth were more than twice as likely to deliver prematurely than women ages 30 to 34 (21 vs. 9 percent)
Did you not ask yourself why they would compare girls under 15 with women between 30-34? Why such a small and select group? If the point is about underage being worse, shouldn't it be against all ages above a certain line?
If you look at the article you will note that more than once they shift age ranges under observation. Nowhere are inherent age related mechanisms in any of those ranges discussed.
4) Inconsistent conclusions being drawn from the stats. You nor they have described what stats are important to determine whether something is a problem for a group of people within a demographic, especially that it would allow proscriptions to be invoked (moral or legal) rather than simply advocating greater medical precautions during such pregnancies.
What do you think will happen when stats are analyzed across race, or wealth, or... even more intriguing... the converse of young mothers? What is the effect of greater age on birth risks for both mother and child? Are you thinking these other demographics should be condemned or reduced should they share similar risk percentages? If not, why not?
5) Although the article suggests greater risk to the children, it does not suggest much risk to the young mother, and indeed not a huge risk to the children. Just because something is twice the risk as in another group, does not make the risk that much greater. LOTS of medical reasons are not apparent within the article, unless you care to define LOTS in some convenient way?
As ever schraf, as ever.
This message has been edited by holmes, 12-02-2005 08:34 AM
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
