No there is no actual figures

In Perinatal Mortality they don't list one figure

just the trends

this is practially useless

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

Show me some actual figures mr.scientist

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

'actual figures'

trends are figures

no they aren't, they are just generalizations

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

I want to see the numbers you dumb nigger

except these says enough

LOL

nobody gives a damn what you want to see

these trends are incredibly well-supported

nice "proof"

sad

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

@Cúchulainn you should really ignore the guy, he can probably continue for hours.

@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

Anybody who defends a vision such as his is humiliated by default.

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

you are a subhuman @Deleted User

"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