>Why are you trying to make it all about this when I referred to birthing complications generally?
You were were referring to complications of the mother, and I claimed and maintain that their obstetrical risks are low and not a result of their pelvic size.
>And preeclampsia, though potentially fatal for the mother, isn't the half of it. Do you honestly think that a permanent tear in the mother's vaginal wall leading to an opening in the rectum or the bladder doesn't qualify as physically dangerous?
Again do you read what I spell out for you? I already addressed this here >>17619866
>At this time, teenage pregnancies were seen as obstetric problems per se, which are associated with an increased risk of anemia, preterm labor, urinary tract infections, hypertension, preeclampsia, a high rate of cesarean sections but also preterm birth, low birth weight, and intrauterine growth restriction.
>These observations, however, are based on studies among social-deprived subpopulations and from third-world countries with very poor medical conditions.
>The toxic combination of a young girl having sex, getting pregnant and going through childbirth when her body is not developed enough accounts for at least 25% of known fistula cases.
Where is the citation for this report?
The studies here say that stillbirth is higher among teenage mothers than those between the ages of 26 and 30, however the rate of stillbirth is also higher in the 20-25 age range than the 26-30 age range, meaning that it is not the size of the pelvis which is the source of these complications as you made the claim in your first post here:>>17619815
The pelvis in the 20-25 age range is at it's adult size, so there's more to the resulting stillbirths than it's size. Again, no mention of the condition of the early adolescent mothers either.