Do You Think God Made A Mistake In the Design of Human Beings if Young Girls Can Get Pregnant? (soul, Christian)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For millennia, teenage girls DID get pregnant, and everyone got along just fine. Only in the last few centuries did society become so complex that it was thought girls needed a ffew nore years of education before moving on to motherhood. It has to do with man's plan, not God's.
For millennia, teenage girls DID get pregnant, and everyone got along just fine. Only in the last few centuries did society become so complex that it was thought girls needed a ffew nore years of education before moving on to motherhood. It has to do with man's plan, not God's.
Everyone got along, but not just fine except for the elite. Something like one-third of "women" (including those teen brides you mention) died in childbirth before the 20th century, and undereducation (not just of women but of men), squalor and illness were rampant.
In addition, it wasn't just old dudes who got married to these little girls. Males married younger, too. Depending upon the era and culture, a boy might be considered a man at 14. Boys worked family farms rather than go to school in an effort to feed families having child after child (nearly one-half of whom died, until the 1800s). They were out in the elements getting sick working machinery that might maim them.
Who benefitted? Would any of this seem just fine if it were you and your family?
Everyone got along, but not just fine except for the elite. Something like one-third of "women" (including those teen brides you mention) died in childbirth before the 20th century, and undereducation (not just of women but of men), squalor and illness were rampant.
None of those were age-dependent. The vital statistics would have been the same even with delayed primagravidity, and would have been attributable to the same causes.
None of those were age-dependent. The vital statistics would have been the same even with delayed primagravidity, and would have been attributable to the same causes.
Of course many were age-dependant, particularly the lack of education (leading frequently to poverty). Have you ever given birth? First births absolutely can be more difficult than subsequent ones, overall take longer, and in a not yet fully grown body, would obviously have been riskier.
And the child's chances would have been worse as well; even today, babies born to under-20 mothers are more likely to be premature, low birthweight, and indeed the rate of chromosomal abnormalities is higher when the mother is under 20 than 20-34. Babies in days gone by died from those things. Babies today die from those things. How about in 1790 after a 72-hour birth from the body of a 14-year-old who isn't even her full height yet, whose medical intervention is prayer and biting a spoon because her 18-year-old husband digs ditches just to keep them eating most days of the month?
It's not set in stone, anyone can have a difficult birth, but yes, childbirth is and was riskier, by the numbers, in very young girls three centuries ago, ten centuries ago, and today with every modern medical intervention in the book.
(corrected myself here) Re: delayed first births - delayed to what age? If 40, perhaps. But again I'd be curious to know how that would have happened. Or indeed how often. The occasional "spinster" married but she was the minority. So it would be hard to compare concrete stats on that. One gigantic sample size, one very small one. First birth stats generally include the fact that a majority are quite young, but particularly in centuries gone by. So again, it's not like age would have had nothing to do with it. We can't know that since the amount of middle-aged first.time mothers was comparatively so.small (that much We DO know). I'm wondering how you can make that assertion. But again...what age? It makes a difference. If 30, I'll bet there would be a higher survival rate for the mother, who would be fully grown by then, among other things.
Here's something interesting. This data compilation was done in Ghana but is present-day. It states that 5 times more mothers up to age 15 are likely to die in/from childbirth and notes poverty and physical immaturity as primary causes. Older teens are twice as likely to die as 20somethings. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3829679/
Of course many were age-dependant, particularly the lack of education (leading frequently to poverty).
Before a century or so ago, there WAS NO edication for girls, at any age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ
Here's something interesting. This data compilation was done in Ghana but is present-day. It states that 5 times more mothers up to age 15 are likely to die in/from childbirth and notes poverty and physical immaturity as primary causes. Older teens are twice as likely to die as 20somethings. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3829679/
In Ghana, the ratio of gilrs to boys in school is over 90%, and has been for more than 20 years. It is, in that sense, a modern culture as much so as our own.
Of course, girls giving birth as young teens exhibit a whole range of high risk factors before they even become sexually active, as a consequence of their personal family life and economic circumstances. For the most part, they were raped or sold into marriage before age 15, and nobody cared, and there was never ob-gyn attention in the picture.. It would be unrealistic to expect a favorable outcome.
Absolutely, but again, the risks increased with very young age. It definitely was age-dependent even within the same group.
And yes, it is very sad.
Which is why human sexuality and birth control information must be taught in schools at a pre-teen time of life. Parents need to be supportive of this.
Which is why human sexuality and birth control information must be taught in schools at a pre-teen time of life. Parents need to be supportive of this.
Children should never be having children.
ETA: In this day and age.
I agree.
These children aren't "meant" to have children except under imminent extinction, which doesn't seem to be a problem.
I wonder how many here believe 11-year-old boys are men and are "meant to" be fathers if they are producing sperm; if not, age 13-14 at the most.
What do you all say?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
