[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/10554122.stm]Source[/url]
[release][B]Young pregnant teenagers are more likely to give birth prematurely and have a small baby than women in their 20s, says an Irish research team.[/B]
[QUOTE][IMG]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/48294000/jpg/_48294134_teenmum_spl.jpg[/IMG]
[I]In 2008, more than 40,000 under-18s conceived[/I][/QUOTE]
Fourteen to 17-year-olds were also more likely to give birth early if they were having a second child, a study of more than 50,000 women in England found.
The findings, reported in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, highlighted the importance of routine medical checks.
The team said more studies were needed to find out why the young were at risk.
The study included all women aged between 14 and 29 who had given birth in north-west England over a two-year period.
[QUOTE][I][B]"We are particularly keen to emphasis the importance of post-natal follow-up, support and adequate counselling regarding contraception for teenagers"[/B][/I]
Professor Louise Kenny - Study leader[/QUOTE]
In all, 3,600 of those were aged between 14 and 17, the researchers said.
More than a third of them came from the most socially deprived areas.
The study also found teenage mothers were also more likely to be underweight.
Those aged under 17 were 21% more likely to have a premature baby with their first pregnancy and 93% more likely to have their second baby early.
There was also a link with younger mothers and having a baby with a low birth weight.
Researcher Dr Ali Khashan, from University College Cork, in the Republic of Ireland, said it might be that the risk of premature birth in the young teenagers was related to "biological immaturity".
"It is also possible that the increased risk of poor pregnancy outcome in the second teenage pregnancy is related to numerous complicating factors such as greater social deprivation and less prenatal care," he added.
The team said teenagers needed to be given proper medical checks during pregnancy and also said more needed to be done to promote contraception after a teenager had their first baby.
[B]Second child[/B]
Professor Louise Kenny, consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist at Cork University Maternity Hospital and study leader, said more research was needed to find out the exact cause of premature babies in teenage girls.
She said one issue was that teenage mothers tended to turn up to health services later in their pregnancy than older mothers and were more likely to miss check-ups.
"It's not clear why the risk is greatest for teenagers having their second child," she said.
"It might be that pre-existing risk factors are increased by the physical and psychosocial demand of another pregnancy during teenage years - but again more research is needed."
She added: "We are particularly keen to emphasis the importance of post-natal follow-up, support and adequate counselling regarding contraception for teenagers."
Professor Steve Thornton, spokesman for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, said he suspected there were a host of complex social and behavioural reasons behind the findings.
"The nice clear message here is that it is even more important for pregnant teenagers to have their antenatal checks to identify if there are any problems."[/release]
Now I understand why [B]ALL[/B] animals only mate once they reach their sexual maturity...
I'll never understand it... is it _Really_ so hard to remember (or do) to take your birth control pills everyday, or wear a damn rubber, before gettin' it on???!!! [I]*sigh and facepalm at the same time*[/I]
I need a "No Shit Sherlock" picture the size of the moon for this.
Now this is from an old study....
Considering puberty isn't completed until 18-20, it makes sense, the body lacks function to create said viable offspring.
The fresher, the tastier
Use birth control, damnit
One hour of pleasure for yourself is not worth the 9 month of pregnancy for the girl, nor is taking care of your kid for the rest of your life.
[QUOTE=Computermaster;23218503]I need a "No Shit Sherlock" picture the size of the moon for this.[/QUOTE]
Haha definitely
[QUOTE=B1N4RY!;23218535]Use birth control, damnit[/QUOTE]
Like I said, I'll never understand why they don't use any... TBH at this moment, the LAST thing I'd want to do is have a son; I'm not ready to be a father yet :/
[editline]10:06PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=B1N4RY!;23218535]One hour of pleasure for yourself is not worth the 9 month of pregnancy for the girl, nor is taking care of your kid for the rest of your life.[/QUOTE]
Me and my gf have divided the price of her birth control pills by the days in a month, and the result ended up being like $1,20 a day...
We concluded there's people WAY too stupid (and cheap) to understand that by spending 1 buck every day you're avoiding a _FUCKLOAD_ of problems
My ex girlfriend had a stillborn and she was 18. Note: I did not conceive the child.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;23219114]My ex girlfriend had a stillborn and she was 18. Note: [B]I did not conceive the child.[/B][/QUOTE]
If you didn't... then who did??
:iiam:
I did
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;23219114]My ex girlfriend had a stillborn and she was 18. Note: I did not conceive the child.[/QUOTE]
Pure class.
Also, aren't the teenage years kind of the prime time to conceive kids? I mean, if it wasn't for all these medical science advances, people would only live to be 30 years old or so.
There should honestly be some way to chemically suppress sperm or egg production in teens. Teen parents are some of the only people that I literally want to walk up to and punch in the fucking face.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;23219157]if it wasn't for all these medical science advances, people would only live to be 30 years old or so.[/QUOTE]
Wrong. I assume you're referring to the often-misinterpreted climb of average life spans as technology has progressed.
Average lifespan only [B]appears[/B] to climb as technology progresses. In fact, the reason for it is because with better technology comes lower infant mortality rates. Infant mortality rates were highest in prehistory, therefore a popular misconception of cavemen is that they only lived to be 30 if they were lucky. Fact of the matter is that adults of this time period, barring an incurable illness, lived to similar old ages as adults today. Now since they didn't have access to the commodities that we take for granted (nutrition for example) they weren't [I]quite[/I] as healthy and they didn't live [I]quite[/I] as long, but they were similar.
[QUOTE=Dr. Punchgroin;23219572]There should honestly be some way to chemically suppress sperm or egg production in teens. Teen parents are some of the only people that I literally want to walk up to and punch in the fucking face.[/QUOTE]
That would just make it worse, the female human body needs to go through a certain amount of ovulation cycles without pregnancy so that the eggs are produced correctly.
And why would you punch a pregnant woman? That is just plain uncalled for.
[QUOTE=Kalibos;23219656]Wrong. I assume you're referring to the often-misinterpreted climb of average life spans as technology has progressed.
Average lifespan only [B]appears[/B] to climb as technology progresses. In fact, the reason for it is because with better technology comes lower infant mortality rates. Infant mortality rates were highest in prehistory, therefore a popular misconception of cavemen is that they only lived to be 30 if they were lucky. Fact of the matter is that adults of this time period, barring an incurable illness, lived to similar old ages as adults today. Now since they didn't have access to the commodities that we take for granted (nutrition for example) they weren't [I]quite[/I] as healthy and they didn't live [I]quite[/I] as long, but they were similar.[/QUOTE]
Thank you.
This misconception all ways pisses me off.
So did they go out and impregnate a bunch of women to see the results, or what?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
