i'm mostly pre-modernist you stupid wanker

eugenics has been debunked by biology

and no, the survivability rates are far lower

eugenics is bullshit

as is most forms of ""biology"" toted by edgy paedos on the internet

no

and why do you say bred

that's regarded as creepy even by premodernist standards

because it's lowering the person to the status of an animal for sex

which was not done towards women historically

no they don't

16 year olds often make shit mothers

i don't have to prove a negative

it's called burden of proof retard

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219236/

here's a nice study

'evolution' didn't do it that way

what are you basing that on

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219236/

read the study dumb bitch

i did read it

firstly, it backs up the first point i made

they die more often

it also shows that they are smaller, and less healthy

they're more likely overall to die

and the mothers have serious side-effects which negatively impact both their health and the health of the child

so shut the HELL up you pseudo-scientific weeun rapist

there's a lot of data, just none in pictoral form

are you one of those that need things drawn in crayon for you to understand?

the study is oriented around 'more likely' and other similar comparisons

and they draw incredibly strong trends between the mother being a teenager and negative side affects on the child

and they provide very thorough analyses for each of those comparisons and trends

'actual figures'

trends are figures

just because they're not laid out in a convenient 'this much exactly' format doesn't mean it's not statistics

no, not generalisations, trends, there is a scientific difference

except these says enough

nobody gives a damn what you want to see

these trends are incredibly well-supported

there's a strong and obvious trend between teenage mothers and shit quality of life for the child among other things, and just because it isn't in the format you find most convenient doesn't make it invalid

@Deleted User true, but, so can i. the point isn't to win the argument so much as to just humiliate him

the longer he whines about how shagging weeuns is perfectly fine in the face of evidence and people calling him a stupid nigger, the longer he looks as disgusting as he is

and so the longer he defends it, the more he is humiliated

you are a subhuman @Deleted User

Comparison between regions will provide indication of a potential contextual element in the relationship between adolescent birth and neonatal mortality."

```The risk of neonatal mortality in all regions was markedly greater for infants with mothers under 16 years old, although there was marked heterogeneity in patterns between regions. Adjusting for socio-economic, demographic and health service utilisation variables did not markedly change the odds ratios associated with age. The increased risks associated with adolescent motherhood are lowest for first births.```

```Adolescent motherhood is associated with a range of adverse outcomes for both mother and infant [3–7] including increased neonatal mortality, which has been demonstrated in a range of settings in both developed and developing countries [8–15]. Globally neonatal deaths now make up 45% of all deaths in children under five years [16], and hence a focus on reducing mortality within this age group is essential. This is recognised in the indicator for the third Sustainable Development Goal [SDG] which states that all countries should reduce their neonatal mortality rate to at least as low as 12 per 1000 live births [17].```

The study you cited evisercates your point

Pubescence is not a mark of biological preparedness

``` In most regions there is a monotonic pattern with the percentage of births resulting in neonatal death increasing with decreasing maternal age, and this pattern is clear for sub-Saharan Africa and South and South-East Asia.```

Pubescence doesn't normally begin at 16

And you have previously argued for 14 being a-ok on more than one occasion

And no, it's not only under 16

The second sentence of the paragraph I posted affirms this, stating that it's mostly only under 16 that the problem exists in Latin America and the Caribbean.
The first sentence which I posted then makes clear that even above 16 there is an issue in Sub-Saharan Africa, South, and South-East Asia due to context

Your position is no better

Except it does

See what I just wrote

And the graph shown in the study you posted shows a marked increase in neonatal deaths between mothers 16/17 years old to 18/19.

So no, the study disproves your point.

Giving birth at 16 is not only not optimal, but far from it.

What's that? An Adhom? 'Ooga booga I'm a stupid nigger' aye sure go fuck yourself like

You're subhuman, so go off sis

The study you posted does not support the idea that birth at 16 is optimal in any sense

It supports the idea that it is considerably more dangerous for both mother and child than giving birth beyond the age of majority.

wahh wahh cry harder

You tried to use a study to justify your point, except your point is wrong and so the study ended up supporting my position instead.

Because I'm not a fucking paedo

Except you haven't

It's not what we've been doing for the majority of human evolution

And the majority of human evolution has seen neonatal mortality rates FAR higher than today

The nature of evolution dictates that the past is inferior to the present.

Because that how evolution operates you retard

Adaptation improves over time.

The babies weren't necessarily sickly

Humans have increased the age of pregnancy over time because it is safer for both mother and child that way, and every study posted here has verified that fact.

Attempting to change what evolution has produced as an adaptation to satisfy your sickening desire to impregnate 15 year old girls is more opposed to nature than any position anyone else has taken here.

Higher survivability rates is a significant part of what Darwinian evolution aims for.

Evolution raised the normal age of pregnancy

Except higher pregnancy age is shown to be better for both mother and child

No, that's a non sequitur

Age of pubescence goes down over time to increase the amount of time a woman may reproduce

Nature disagrees with you retard

You're telling a PAGAN what nature does

My life is dedicated to nature, and this stupid bitch is telling me that lolicon means nature says he can fuck 15 year olds

'Survival of the fittest' on an individualist level is completely absent from all conceptions of Darwinian evolution.

Sister Nassie and der Ewige hot take

20 year old isn't a roastie you daft cunt

>20 year is a grandma

No, it isn't

Because pubescence beginning at 12 and giving birth to a child cannot have a child capable of reproduction by the time the mother is 20

So no, it's not a grandma, nor even close

Paedophile vs autist

Shut the fuck up Sister Nassie

I know women are supposed to be stupid

But you're pushing the fucking limit

As much as I hate that fucking bitch of a hag, she does have a nice voice

Send it @🍭 Decay 🎃

She strikes me as the kind to look really nice but also be miserably socially dysfunctional

Looks gorgeous, but has the facial expressions of a statue and does nothing more than stare blankly into the slate floor 24 hours a day

Damn