Is pregnancy over 40 less dangerous than pregnancy under 15/10-14

[DanDandadada]

I read this comment here:
The risk of maternal mortality is greatest with 40+ age range. But adolescent pregnancy has the greatest risk for long-term health complications for both mother and child. The rates of preeclampsia are high and the risk of developing full blown eclampsia is five times greater in this age range. They are also more likely to deliver before 37 weeks, more likely to have low birthweight , more likely to require a c-section delivery, more likely to have their babies admitted into neonatal intensive care. They also have greater risk of post partum depression and more likely to be unable to nurse.

and further read in the U.S the rate of maternal mortality for women over 40 is 6.8 times more than women aged 20-24

globally read girls under 15 are 5x more likely to die

So is maternal mortality risk really greatest in 40+ and do these stats mean under 15 is less dangerous than over 40?

a teen in the uk with decent medical care (most likely consultant led) having a c-section would fare better than a 40 year old under the same circumstances. depending on other factors the babies are at higher risk of mortality in both groups.

Also unsure what you are after here OP
a few hundred years ago, birth at 14 or 15 years wouldn’t have been unusual. Agree with @BreakingBroken that a teenager body is much stronger and more adaptable than a 40 year olds.
the lesser outcomes for teen pregnancy now is down to sociological and economic factors, not biological.

Depends on a lot of factors.

I don’t think there are many under 15s giving birth in this country I say that as someone who was pregnant at 15 gave birth at 16. Never met one younger than me in fact always felt a bit self conscious because I’m always the youngest.

I think under 15 is most likely a victim of pedophilia and far worse than being pregnant over 40

Under 15 is too big of a range to comment properly. No child should be getting pregnant, obviously. But from a scientific standpoint I’d expect there to be a huge discrepancy between 12 and 14 (for example) once you’ve controlled for socio-economic status & healthcare access. But I’d also expect there to be a huge difference between 14 and only just started periods vs 14 and started periods 5 years earlier. As for older women, again there’s too many other factors to get properly usable stats.

I would not be at all surprised if it was physically (obv not mentally) safer at 15 than 45. But I don’t think we have the stats we’d need to prove it either way. And nor should we - 15yo shouldn’t get pregnant regardless of whether it is safer than at 45. There is plenty of time in the middle that women can have kids instead.

Overall under 15 should be yes as one is a child

i want to say:
A. No physically under 15 is harmful and dangerous socioeconomic factors and medical are relevant for 15+
under that its always dangerous as science has shown

What is the point of this thread?

A healthy well grown and nourished 14yo is likely physically to have a less complicated birth than a 40yo. But as other's have said neither is ideal. Giving birth in your early 20's is lowest risk.

That doesn't mean an under 15 year old would always have a more "dangerous and harmful" outcome, than an over 40 year old. Like I said, it depends on a lot of factors.

No that is not true
science does not support that
15 but 14 no its not 40 would be safer
what is your source on this?

If you are sure science has shown it to be more dangerous, why even ask the question? Why not state it as a fact (with appropriate links)?

I’d be really interested in any evidence which shows that the biology alone is the reason it is more dangerous for under 15s. (Ie once you’ve controlled for healthcare, socio-economic status etc.)

extremely few teen's under 15 give birth and if they have medical care their risk of death is most likely less than 45+
you're still not explaining yourself well @DanDandadada

What is your source? And why are you asking if you're so sure you already know the answer?

I remember watching a BBC series years ago about pregnant 14 and 15 year olds. I’m sure your stats are right and anecdata isn’t data, but they all seemed to have easy pregnancies and births - I don’t recall any of them having c-sections or anything like that. By comparison the over 40 first time mums I know have all had c-sections bar 1, and usually a fair few other complications as well. The last one was hospitalised for 2 weeks due to infections and blood loss in both mum
and baby.

I think it depends a lot on the affluence of the expectant mum, the level of education and the level of healthcare available, as with all healthcare.

And genetics.

My dm had three babies after 40 (and 3 before).

I and my four dsis have all had babies in our 40s, all conceived naturally. I had ds at 45y2m, problem free pregnancy, no nausea, just a bit tired. Delivered naturally (if a bit slow).

None of us has had an issue. Now dniece expecting her 3rd at 41. It's completely normal for us.

why do you say that its less when its physically harmful and dangerous
under 15 is not as developed as someone 45

Is this just a dressed up ‘older mothers are better’ type thread? It seems pointless. Obviously being a mother at 15 is far from ideal, but there are equal but separate reasons to say that about being 45.

because teen's have a better ability for homeostasis than a 40+ year old.
physically harmful is NOT mortality which is death.
yes if they deliver vaginally when not fully developed they may have higher issues with damage to urinary and excretory track.
but 40+ year old women have a higher risk of death due to blood clots due to age.

no its not
just people under 15 are not growing and developed enough
so 45+ is healthier
WHO said under 15 has highest risks of obstoreic death

Likely because they’re in underdeveloped countries and socioeconomic factors?

they said globally
socioeconomic factors are relevant for 15+
do you have any sources for your claims?
none
keep in mind their bodies are not done growing

https://www.marchofdimes.org/peristats/data?reg=99&top=8&stop=354&lev=1&slev=1&obj=1

says nothing about under 15 and doesn't prove under 15 have an easier time than over 40

This is such a weird thread.
OP, what are you trying to prove?
older teens are going to be PHYSICALLY safer than over 40’s during pregnancy and birth, but much more likely to be negatively impacted by socioeconomic economic conditions.
its that simple.