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?

Obviously, it depends - the birth rate for under 15's in the UK is very low and skewed as it will include those raped/hiding pregnancies/learning disabilities etc. In countries where they have more teenage pregnancies, the stats will be skewed because they're poorer and have less good outcome anyway.

What are you worried about OP - it's going to really depend on your situation.

It shows that in a developed country such as the USA, under 20s have half the caesarean rate that over 40s do.

The study below relating to pre eclampsia also cites women 15-17 were at 30% higher risk (95%CI 22- 38%) and women 45-54 were at 104% higher risk (95% CI 70-144%) for SMM with transfusion

https://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(18)31361-9/fulltext

UNDER 20
That does not include 10-14 or under 15
come on
also tbh i don't know you're arguing its safer for children to give birth than full grown women

You sound almost frantic in your questioning about this 15 v 40 yrold pregnancies.
Can I ask you with kindness are you pregnant and under 15 or are you a parent of a pregnant 15yr old?

Pregnancy at the age of 10 is virtually unheard of in developed countries with high levels of medical care. So you won’t find studies relating to such pregnancies where the medical care is good, and in sufficient numbers to draw conclusions.

You seem very eager to prove getting pregnant at 45 is healthier than getting pregnant at 12, why? How old were you when you had kids, how did you find it? Can you contribute to this discussion?

I too would like to know!

I think reading this - it's a young person and she's considering getting pregnant. Which is obviously a really bad idea.

There is no rush - you have a lot of life to live yet and you have lots of time to have babies. Even if you have found the right person, you can wait. If they're the right person they're not going to go away. Although, I found that they right person in my 20's wasn't the right person to be married to in my 30's and I was really glad I waited to have children.

Every socio-economic variable is lower if you give birth very young - your children's educational outcome, your wealth, happiness and future is negatively affected.

I was reading it as a pregnant 47 year old irate about age comments who wants to prove their age bracket isn’t the ‘worst’. Funny how we interpret things!

Yes knowing a bit more about your interest and concern would be helpful.

I' am not
but thing is there are crazy people who say harmful gross stuff that kids under 15 should get pregnant:
https://imgur.com/a/6WGBqmT
and I want scientific data to show them its harmful and dangerous physically

I ask because many might use "well 45 has risks so you should be against those 45" and want to show them its not the highest

there is less chance of death with consultant led care and access to sound medical facilities to deliver during the teen years than 45+.
but there is a higher rate of complications as stated in your original post.
mortality (death) is not the same as morbidity (secondary complications) which may not include the health of the baby.
again as per your original post teens have higher secondary complications and infant mortality.

a few things
Is morbidity dangerous and risky
second with medical acces and sound care yes for 15+ but that does not seem to the case for 10-14/under 15
tbh not sure why you keep saying this as can't find anything to support that anywhere

But the risks are different for the age groups. Firstly if anyone is advocating pregnancies at 10 being routine, they’re a paedophile and I wouldn’t be debating them at all. Secondly if we’re talking about the mid to late teen age bracket, physically the issues may or may not be raised compared to a 20/30 year old but their career prospects, odds of staying with the father, odds of being ‘ready’ to parent with so little life experience are much lower.

You can’t prove pregnancy at 12 is fine by saying ‘but 45+ has bigger risks in this one specific area’

some of those age brackets are simply unethical/illegal and extremely rare
Adolescent birth rate, 10-14 year olds, 2023

I think pregnancy and birth can be risky at any age. At the end of the day biology has made it that we can conceive roughly from around age 11 up to 50 (on average, not everyone of course). So aslong as we can conceive then realistically we are healthy enough to do it, I don't think being a certain age impacts it much, it's more the overall health of the mother in general and their individual risk factors

@DanDandadada there is some confusion here regarding the ‘moral’ issue of pregnant teens (you keep referring to paedophiles) and the physical implications. Discounting socio economic factors, teenagers physically fare generally well during pregnancy and birth in the UK. I used to work with pregnant teens for many years, I don’t recall any infant deaths or maternal mortality. Most mothers were very keen to show off their new babies and would be in the classroom the week after giving birth looking and feeling very well!

good lord that is so so wrong
its especially harmful and dangerous under 15 and science shows this
jesus christ you are posting the shit I want to be against

No person with a fundamental understanding of anatomy would claim that merely because a girl has begun menstruating that she’s absolutely ready to deliver infants vaginally. Additionally, not “all” pregnancies have complications. There are substantial populations of girls nowadays who start menstruating at 9, 10, 11 years old- but just because they have started menstruating doesn’t mean their bodies are ready to support a full term pregnancy or to deliver vaginally (and I’m completely ignoring the devastating emotional, social, and psychological implications of a child pregnancy). Even a 14 year old girl barely has a fully developed pelvis. Ten to twelve year old girls (who are absolutely capable of menstruating) generally have a birth canal that is too narrow to allow the infant’s head and shoulders to pass through safely, which results in obstructed labor or cephalopelvic disproportion. There also would be an enormous degree of vaginal and uterine trauma that would probably result in permanent reproductive damage. Don’t even get me started on the other obvious significant issues of likely fistulas (which would lead to lifelong bladder issues and possible infections), potential hemorrhaging, shock, and death. NO responsible practitioner or medical student would EVER suggest that the beginning of menstruation indicates the body’s physiological readiness to safely deliver babies

If you are so certain you’re correct please link to appropriate studies. Most of us are simply saying we don’t think teen pregnancy is okay but we also dont have the data to prove it biologically (one you control for other factors). You seem adamant “science” has proven it so share your evidence.

(as an aside, science is a collection of data. It cannot prove anything with 100% certainty and definitely has no morality in itself. So using “science” as an appeal to authority is very poor form)

Also, puberty is much more complex than starting periods. So a girl who started periods a week ago is not as far through puberty as a girl who started periods 5 years ago, even if the girls are the same age.

I agree with you, the link you posted earlier doesn’t work but I assume you’ve come across a group of nonces arguing woman should get pregnant as soon as they start their periods. Fucking gross 🤢.

As I say I was pregnant at 15 gave birth at 16 and I’ve never met a mother that was younger than me to the point I’m super self conscious about it lol so thankfully seems under 15 pregnancy is super rare in the uk. For good reason as you say the birth canal hasn’t finished growing it is very dangerous physically and obviously mentally.

My mother gave birth at 41 with absolutely no issues, I don’t get why anyone would argue giving birth at 41 is worse than 11. It’s obviously not ,a complete no brainer.

No point arguing with nonces though they don’t want to hear facts they’re just trying to justify being nonces

I’m not sure anyone here thinks it’s advisable to encourage children aged 15 or younger to have babies.

Who are you arguing with?

I literally quoted a post saying so from a med practicioner
read above and they list all the flaws
also this as been known for centuries

here:
https://imgur.com/a/zhHvafN

@Fleur405 Yes this. I never said it was a good idea by any stretch, just that biologically speaking I don't think there are massively different risks at 15 and 40. I in no way think 15 or under or any teenager for that matter should be getting pregnant!! That's a whole other topic, I was answering the question of is it more risky