18-20 is not the “typical age for healthy children”, it’s in the oldest part of not being that and very youngest part of it. No one that young should have children anyway. Your, objectively wrong, view of this borders on very creepy.
I’ve heard the argument that it’s sexist or predatory or whatever, and often people say that 18-20 is still too young physically and carries risks. But if what you’re saying is true, then it contradicts that
Mhm, pushing that teenagers have the healthiest children and lowest maternal problems helps foster beliefs like this- that men significantly older than teenagers are not sexist or predatory for impregnating them. This is a comment from this very conversation thread.
In reality it’s around 25-30, especially with a younger father since paternal age also matters. It’s a pretty narrow window for the best possible outcomes for both the mother and child.
18-20 is not the “typical age for healthy children”, it’s in the oldest part of not being that and very youngest part of it. No one that young should have children anyway. Your, objectively wrong, view of this borders on very creepy.
Mhm, pushing that teenagers have the healthiest children and lowest maternal problems helps foster beliefs like this- that men significantly older than teenagers are not sexist or predatory for impregnating them. This is a comment from this very conversation thread.
In reality it’s around 25-30, especially with a younger father since paternal age also matters. It’s a pretty narrow window for the best possible outcomes for both the mother and child.