``` 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

the vast majority

like 99.9999999999%

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.

that was a good thing tbf

Because that how evolution operates you retard

who wants sickly babies to survive

Adaptation improves over time.

I hope you have some retard child you have to take care of because you knock up some old roastie

The babies weren't necessarily sickly

@Deleted User we in fact want sickly babies to survive, so we develop our immunological system.