[ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation...

[Samantha Atkins]

On May 2, 2008, at 3:00 PM, Kevin Freels wrote:

>
> I wholeheartedly agree that the concern for girls having children at  
> such a young age is much more a cultural concern than a biological  
> one. I've already stated my thoughts previously about this. I just  
> wanted to point out that the quality and quantity of eggs only  
> benefits the baby from an evolutionary perspective. Once that baby  
> is born it doesn't matter if the mother lives 15 or 50 years. There  
> can still be health concerns when a very young girl has a baby at  
> such a young age. For example, often the hips have not widened to a  
> point where the baby can be passed easily which increases  
> complications. Various sources put the ideal age from a biological  
> standpoint ranges between 13 and 17.

Yes but the "cultural concern" is quite legitimate.   This is also  
prime learning age.  In cultures with a great deal of accumulated  
knowledge, like ours, to have babies during those years has a major  
negative effect on subsequent years of a woman's life and on her non- 
biological contributions.    Beyond this it is economically highly non- 
viable to have children so young.

>
> What I find interesting is that while our culture seems to be  
> continually pushing the "prime" child bearing years towards later  
> life and the population numbers are growing stagnant, the age of  
> sexual maturity in women is actually growing younger. Girls now are  
> maturing at much younger ages than they did just a couple decades  
> ago and the prime age is of course decreasing as well.

I don't think the prime child-bearing age is decreasing actually.  It  
can't decrease very much and still be sufficiently grown to safely  
give birth.  Girls are reaching puberty earlier largely due to  
environmental increases in certain chemicals afaik.

- samantha