"Several previous studies only identify risk at the lower end of the adolescent spectrum, such as for those under 16 years of age [3,12], with the neonates of older adolescents experiencing similar risks to those of mothers in their 20s. Comparison between regions will provide indication of a potential contextual element in the relationship between adolescent birth and neonatal mortality."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5965834/

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

Usually poorer areas have younger mothers

```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

"under 16"

read nigger

READ

``` 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

well I was arguing being bred at 15 and giving birth at 16

I never argued for fucking 13 year olds

maybe you should debate my position and not a strawman

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

It is and your data doesn't support your claim

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.

You aren't qualified to even be reading a study lol

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

people like you who use scienceman for all their beliefs are beyond retarded

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

I don't need scienceman to tell me that what we have been doing for the majority of human evolution is natural

"pedo"

Except you haven't

pubescent

nigger

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