• EatATaco@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    6 months ago

    That doesn’t appear to separate out the ages, it just says it typically happens 15-19, but can be as low as 10.

    I have a feeling no matter how many facts or how much data I present to refute your position you aren’t going to be open to changing your mind.

    Let’s see if you’re projecting:

    “A woman’s fertility peaks between her late teens to late-20s after which it starts to decline”

    But that being said, you recognize that this was typical, which seems you should also recognize that this is what we evolved around. If women were reproducing at a young age, but were dying slightly more by their 30s, this wasn’t creating downward evolutionary pressure.

    • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      The best time to have a baby with the lowest risk is ages 20 - 26. That’s the window with the best outcome. I love science, it’s the best way to move towards better ideas and medical practices. That’s why I care about dispelling the idea that teenagers are in their reproductive prime.

      Also, this might be interesting to you. Women didn’t marry young as frequently as we’re told.

      https://historymyths.wordpress.com/2014/07/06/myth-136-women-married-very-young-in-the-olden-days/

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        So not being open to changing your mind was a projection. I figured as much, its almost always people thinking they see themselves in other people when they make baseless accusations.

        • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          You ignored data twice, and then I agreed that past 30 is a higher risk pregnancy. No idea what you are talking about friend.

          I then provided info that shows women werent always marrying as young as people tend think which goes against your basis that evolution supports teens being in their reproductive prime. You haven’t supplied any data at all to back up your claims.

          But you do you. The info is out there for you and others. Have a nice day now

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            6 months ago

            You ignored data twice

            I addressed all of the data you provided, even asking for further clarification for one of the sources. You just hand-waved my point, with data, away. Even now trying to claim that I didn’t provide it. And you’re accusing me of ignoring data. Lol Just another projection. You’re good at doing this.