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?

what age range cuz if you mean 15+ then sure
but 10-14 has many issues so what range did you work with?

@alloutofcareunits there are physical implications I quoted above and here too lemme rephrase:
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

@DanDandadada the service covered 12-19 but most girls were 15 and over, those under were rare but still happened. I’m certainly not citing it as a ‘good idea’ and most of the girls said if they had their time again they’d have waited until they were older usually for social reasons eg friends going out, having holidays while they were at home with a toddler, housing difficulties , relationship breakdowns etc, but physically they were fine. I’m still in touch with some who are now in their 30s and have had more children, they don’t appear to have had any negative physical effects from giving birth young. Emotionally, however, very different story.

A few things
1 on my post I clearly said 10-14 not 15+

1. Socioeconomic factors are relevant more for 15+
2. The vast majority were 15 and above yes
3. How many were under 15 if you can recall

@alloutofcareunits

Biologically it makes more sense to birth at 15 compared to 40. You are young, fit and healthy and until recently (last 100 or so years), more likely to live long enough to bring up your kids before you die.

With modern medical science though, older Mums are probably more likely to have healthy nutrition, financial stability and engage with health care services making it safer compared to a very young Mum.

@DanDandadada you asked for people’s views yet your responses are very argumentative when someone doesn’t give the answer you appear to want, why are you being so challenging about this? No one is supporting the idea that having babies very young is a positive thing, but you asked about the biological comparison and that’s what people have responded with? Regarding your question, I did the job for over 8 years from 2004-2012 at the height of a government teenage pregnancy national strategy, I cannot possibly remember how many girls I saw were under 15.

when I click it says this

Content Not Available
Content not available in your region.
Learn more about Imgur access in the United Kingdom

Imgur is blocked in the UK
due to a dispute with the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) over data protection and privacy concerns, particularly regarding user data and compliance with the UK's Online Safety Act. Imgur chose to block access in the region rather than comply with UK regulations. This means UK users cannot log in, upload images, or view content, and embedded Imgur images on other websites also will not disPlay

i think this may be why the thread isn’t going well, most mumsnet users are British so they can’t see what you’re referring to

I'm still curious as to why this matters to you? Do you know someone who's under 15 and pregnant and telling you it's no riskier than a 45 year old having a baby?

I think she’s stumbled upon a coven of nonces arguing a period means you’re old enough to have children, but the link she posted doesn’t work in the uk so we can’t see it

you said it was rare yes?

i said under 15 come on

sorrry just saw this
but when you say teen what age range? do you mean 15+
because under 15 no does not mean that as:

However, pregnancies at a very young age carry risks, among many other causes, due to developmental competition. Nutrients, hemodynamics, cardiac function, etc. begin to change and adjust to meet the demands of the fetus. However, these changes are occurring in a woman who also needs to develop, and this situation can cause physiological conflict

first again said under 15
but a girl having a child under 15 is biologically dangerous and the issues are biological
this has been known for centuries by physicians that very early pregnancy was dangerous and was not the norm studies show this
this is so weird

older teens socioeconomic
but under 15 are at risk physically