Date: 2008-06-20 01:34 pm (UTC)
I'm just in a rather analytical mood. I blame my thesis. Most of the time, I really do choose my words carefully and try not to make generalizations and try to be critical (even of articles I'm using to try to back up my point!) But hey, get me angry, and I can be as irrational and dishonest as the next person! :p

Well I think that article really implied that 16 year olds were more likely to have health problems. But if your mother was a healthy 16 year old who had enough red meat and no real health problems and had mostly passed puberty, and had good doctors, then she would have been fine. Same as a 40 year old who ate correctly, was healthy, fit, etc, would probably be fine having a kid as well. Most of those statistics go on the 'normal' person, and yeah, the normal 20 year old would be far better equipped energy and health wise to deal with a baby. However, I would weigh that up against the fact 20 year olds are rather irresponsible (generally, obviously there are many exceptions!) and while having a baby may make them more mature, I would honestly prefer they wait five years and grow up first. I've seen too many 20 year olds leave their keys, wallets, laptops lying around randomly, or abandon friends when they're bored. I'd really not want to see how they deal with a baby when they realise that it's not all fun, smiles and baby showers.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Profile

fpb: (Default)
fpb

February 2019

S M T W T F S
     12
345 6789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 26th, 2025 06:02 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios