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.

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.

they are. if they die as a neonate, they weren't fit to srvive

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.

I'm not changing anything. I am merely not buying your liberal abstract dogma

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

Evolution raised the normal age of pregnancy

no, your abstractions did

if it truly did, age of pubescence would be going up

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