Ok so just to give everyone a little background as to what I do, I work on a Pediatric/Neonatal transport truck with Medical City Childrens Hospital in Dallas. I am an EMT and always have 2 pediatric nurses on every shift. Ok so now the call. One day we get called out to a hospital to pick up a neonate that was just born at an estimated 23wks gestation. So we get there, and are talking to the nurses and doctor to get some info. So apparantly the mom, who is 12, was brought to the er, by her grandparents, for abdominal pain. Upon examination, the er staff realized that she was pregnant and in labor. My guess what tipped them off was the fact that the baby's butt was sticking out. So since the baby was breech, they took her to surgery for an emergency c-section and had to do CPR on the baby. The neonatalogist got there and took over. She estimated the baby to actually be approximately 25wks gestation. The 12 year old mom, didn't know she was pregnant so obviously had no prenatal care. The nurses had to explain to her that the reason her belly had been getting bigger and the reason she wasn't having a period was because she was pregnant. One of the nurses I was working with that day also had a 12 year old daughter. After the call, he called his wife and told her to get the chastity belt out and put it on her and throw the key away. lol. I still can't believe that this girl was 12!! The baby survived and is doing good in the NICU last I heard.
Young kids having babies.
- Thread starter amberdt03
- Start date
Having studied biological anthropology let me share some interesting perspectives on this.
In biological systems, the onset of reproduction is driven by the availability of home range resources, food, water, shelter, and availability of mates.
Now while in Western culture an adult contributing to society needs to be much older before reproducing in terms of economic stability, nature doesn’t exactly take culture into account. Especially in the US we like to assign arbitrary numbers to levels of maturity. 16 to drive, 18 to vote, 21 to drink, and 30 to make your car insurance go down. The same resources that cause diseases like obesity and our plethora of cardiac problems, contribute to lowering the onset of menarche in females. (average age in western culture is 9 years old)
Have you ever wondered why in BLS, the age categories were so low? In medicine we are measuring biological development, not sociological contribution. In addition from the anatomical development standpoint, the relative flexibility of the pelvis due to incomplete ossification around the age of 12-13 is actually optimal in strength/flexibility ratios for having children in females. It will also more easily respond to bone remodeling making further childbearing more efficient.(both for developing fetus and labor)
In some cultures (particularly in Asia and Africa), having a baby as soon as possible is not only considered a sign of maturity, it is actually the desired goal. Even in some cultures in the US, a female is not considered mature (at any age) until she has a child. You can even find some who think that having a kid is the best thing that could happen to them at any age, particularly followers of certain religions. (not my business to judge beliefs, only identify them)
Now don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that kids having kids is a good thing, in fact it is quite a bad thing. But when dealing with people, it is always good to be able to understand what drives them to behave like they do. (there are forces more primal than television)
As we progress as a technologically advanced species, we should start expecting to see people steadily decreasing in the age which they are having children. The politics of what to do about it is another matter entirely.
In biological systems, the onset of reproduction is driven by the availability of home range resources, food, water, shelter, and availability of mates.
Now while in Western culture an adult contributing to society needs to be much older before reproducing in terms of economic stability, nature doesn’t exactly take culture into account. Especially in the US we like to assign arbitrary numbers to levels of maturity. 16 to drive, 18 to vote, 21 to drink, and 30 to make your car insurance go down. The same resources that cause diseases like obesity and our plethora of cardiac problems, contribute to lowering the onset of menarche in females. (average age in western culture is 9 years old)
Have you ever wondered why in BLS, the age categories were so low? In medicine we are measuring biological development, not sociological contribution. In addition from the anatomical development standpoint, the relative flexibility of the pelvis due to incomplete ossification around the age of 12-13 is actually optimal in strength/flexibility ratios for having children in females. It will also more easily respond to bone remodeling making further childbearing more efficient.(both for developing fetus and labor)
In some cultures (particularly in Asia and Africa), having a baby as soon as possible is not only considered a sign of maturity, it is actually the desired goal. Even in some cultures in the US, a female is not considered mature (at any age) until she has a child. You can even find some who think that having a kid is the best thing that could happen to them at any age, particularly followers of certain religions. (not my business to judge beliefs, only identify them)
Now don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that kids having kids is a good thing, in fact it is quite a bad thing. But when dealing with people, it is always good to be able to understand what drives them to behave like they do. (there are forces more primal than television)
As we progress as a technologically advanced species, we should start expecting to see people steadily decreasing in the age which they are having children. The politics of what to do about it is another matter entirely.
medic417
The Truth Provider
- 5,104
- 3
- 38
I've transported several 12 year olds in active labor. I am aware of at least 2 11 year olds being transported in active labor by my service. Everything works the same way. If full term you just catch. If theres a problem you deal with it. Was not that many decades ago even in the USA that many 12, 13 year olds got married. In some countrys is still the norm. And we all know that the kids like to have "fun" so at times they may have to much and get pregnant. So I guess I see no difference in this pregnancy from another. Glad the baby is surviving.
Marriage laws for all states:
http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/emancipation_of_minors/index.shtml
http://usmarriagelaws.com/
http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/emancipation_of_minors/index.shtml
http://usmarriagelaws.com/
Sasha
Forum Chief
- 7,667
- 11
- 0
I thought it was 25.... Darn it!
veneficus in no way am i judging this girl for having a baby. it just shocks me because she is not going to be able to take care of this kid. She's never going to experience a normal childhood because she's gonna be taking care of a kid. hopefully her grandparents are understanding and are able to talk care of this baby to at least give it a chance at a good life.
this girl was not an emancipated minor. she is still under the guardianship of her grandparents.
medic417
The Truth Provider
- 5,104
- 3
- 38
Actually your theory is flawed as the age of having babys in the USA has gotten older with technology. Prior to WWII most women were married with kids prior to 16. Now that is much less common. So you are saying that now we will see a reversal as more technology comes out, why a reversal?
medic417
The Truth Provider
- 5,104
- 3
- 38
Actually she is emancipated because she is with child.
Depending on the state the minor may have to wait until 14 before petitioning the court unless there is marriage involved. The info for this is also on the link I posted previously. It will also depend on whether she is making the decisions for the child AS AN ADULT which then what medic417 states may apply.
However, for the past several decades this country has supported the idea of grandparents raising the children of their children.
Last edited by a moderator:
It is not my theory and it is not flawed.
My statement doesn't mean that all people will start having kids earlier, only that they will be physically able to and the ages of those who do will get younger.
The average age of people in the US having kids is due to the sociological influences like desire to have a career, have experiences prior to parenthood, etc. On average people are having less children in addition to later in life. But those conscious decisions doesn't change the biology of the matter. (which is what I was speaking of)
Last edited by a moderator:
medic417
The Truth Provider
- 5,104
- 3
- 38
Sorry missunderstood.
mycrofft
Still crazy but elsewhere
- 11,322
- 48
- 48
Kids have kids because they have sex.
Our culture identifies children as sex objects, markets to them on the basis of how "sexy" they will be if they buy/do/go something, and we do not keep them broke, rideless and loved.
Natal age is not just a factor of when and where you are but of which social group you live in, education level, absent parents, etc etc. There are cultural strata where it's no big thing, and usually because the female "adults" had offspring at an early age and cannot act on the fact that they made a mistake, (lots of times maybe), or were victims of a society aggrandizing free-range male DNA donors and their "girlfriends", "fiances", or ":censored::censored: 's" (their term, not mine).
Our culture identifies children as sex objects, markets to them on the basis of how "sexy" they will be if they buy/do/go something, and we do not keep them broke, rideless and loved.
Natal age is not just a factor of when and where you are but of which social group you live in, education level, absent parents, etc etc. There are cultural strata where it's no big thing, and usually because the female "adults" had offspring at an early age and cannot act on the fact that they made a mistake, (lots of times maybe), or were victims of a society aggrandizing free-range male DNA donors and their "girlfriends", "fiances", or ":censored::censored: 's" (their term, not mine).
pandora's box
I was trying not to start off the socioeconomic line, but since it is open...
Monogamous relations serve only one function: to monopolize reproductive rights
In avians and humans, the function of a long term relationship with mating is to reduce the female’s ATP requirement for reproduction and raising offspring to their own reproduction.
Free range males being negative is actually a cultural bias, as many species the male plays no other role. As an extreme example look at lions: The females not only have to support offspring, but the male as well. The cultural bias gets even greater, in humans most believe the male actually contributes 50% of the genetic material. When you look at female gamete development which occurs largely prenatal, as well as the fact not all of the male traits are expressed in the phenotype, a sperm is really just a check mark that allows further development of the female gamete. All told a male with very dominant genes will contribute <30% of the total genetic makeup of the offspring. As a real culture shock, when you examine the structure of a Y chromosome an argument can be that a male is not even a complete organism. In desperate circumstances females of at least 4 species I know of can reproduce parthogenically. It is impossible for a male to have such capability.
I think you also have to consider basic life needs, breath, eat, and reproduce. With shelter and food everything required to be a parent is met. The whole education, cell phone, car, benefit to society is actually just a bonus. Some of us choose to have more, some don’t. It doesn’t make reproduction a mistake.
Western society has decided that all life is valuable, as such, safety nets are provided to make sure there is no lack of the basic requirements. That leads into the discussion of altruism, which serves not only an individual but maintains the species as well.
I was trying not to start off the socioeconomic line, but since it is open...
Monogamous relations serve only one function: to monopolize reproductive rights
In avians and humans, the function of a long term relationship with mating is to reduce the female’s ATP requirement for reproduction and raising offspring to their own reproduction.
Free range males being negative is actually a cultural bias, as many species the male plays no other role. As an extreme example look at lions: The females not only have to support offspring, but the male as well. The cultural bias gets even greater, in humans most believe the male actually contributes 50% of the genetic material. When you look at female gamete development which occurs largely prenatal, as well as the fact not all of the male traits are expressed in the phenotype, a sperm is really just a check mark that allows further development of the female gamete. All told a male with very dominant genes will contribute <30% of the total genetic makeup of the offspring. As a real culture shock, when you examine the structure of a Y chromosome an argument can be that a male is not even a complete organism. In desperate circumstances females of at least 4 species I know of can reproduce parthogenically. It is impossible for a male to have such capability.
I think you also have to consider basic life needs, breath, eat, and reproduce. With shelter and food everything required to be a parent is met. The whole education, cell phone, car, benefit to society is actually just a bonus. Some of us choose to have more, some don’t. It doesn’t make reproduction a mistake.
Western society has decided that all life is valuable, as such, safety nets are provided to make sure there is no lack of the basic requirements. That leads into the discussion of altruism, which serves not only an individual but maintains the species as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
fortsmithman
Forum Deputy Chief
- 1,335
- 5
- 38
Here in Canada it's 25 before your insurance goes down and depending on the province or territory is either 18 or 19 to legally consume alcoholic beverages. Here in Canada also the marriage laws vary from 18 or 19 to marry without parental consent. With parental consent the average age is 16. One province has the age set fr girls at 12 yrs. here in the NWT the age is 15 with parental consent. Also here in the NWT we have quite a few underage parents.
Last edited by a moderator:
well there is no way she should be able to make decisions for the baby "as an adult" especially when she can't even provide for her child. that is why i believe she is not emancipated. but hey, whats one more welfare child in our poor country.
medic417
The Truth Provider
- 5,104
- 3
- 38
I don't write the laws. But in most states a female that is pregnant is considered an adult and can make all medical decisions for herself and her child. Yes it is sad that she has no job so unless her parents, grandparents continue to raise her and her child we the tax payers will foot the bill. But to cover the medical bills the parents and grandparents would be smart to leave her and allow medicaid to foot the bill, rather than get stuck with it themselves.
EMTWintz
Forum Lieutenant
- 210
- 0
- 0
In IL you are not considered emancipated just cuz you have a kid. You are responsible for all the decisions in referance to the child but the "mother" is still under her parents/guardian. So to clarify if mother and baby were hurt the mother can make the medical decision for her babe, and the mother's mother has to give consent for her. I am sure that it varies from state to state but that is how it is here.