12-Year-Old Loli Bride Dies in Childbirth

He speaks truth. They all suck.

uh, did you not read it... the infant died too, so no tormenting will be partaken on his behalf. and while i'm in the mood of pointing things out, i don't think that the little girl had much say in her possition either, as she was "given" to her husband by her parents...

No, you didn't read, idiot.

I don't hate but that religion is bad...
12 year old vagina is too small to give birth...
...but I heard there were similar cases successful in both Japan & USA... perhaps the technology problem?
Anyway, I don't enjoy lolita...
I love OPPAI Adult!! Hahahaha!

You sir, deserve a medal.

that 24 year-old guy deserves to be fucked in the rear by a shovel D:

poor kid.. at the very least he could have waited till she's 18 then make her bear his child, idiot.

What about punishing him by raping with orca, a killer whale? So he can feel what that girl must have gone through.

@erochichi This is Saudi Arabia. They will probably give the guy a medal or something.

She's in a better place. Away from people like that.

Sharia law sucks. If they take over the world, I'm killin myself. Fuck all this.

Yeah, I pretty much agree he's an idiot.

Like I said below, society demands too much out of people, especially families, to justify making kids so early on.

But do think about this logically for a minute.

The reason we reach puberty at ages like 9/10/11/12 years old is because that's when our ancestors were first making babies. Otherwise it would be older. There's just no getting around that fact.

Complain as much as you like, you will still fail Genetics 101. Even despite the slightly higher mortality rate for youthful childbirth, puberty comes as the floor age of common sexual activity.

If we started puberty at 18, these commenters would be raising their usual mindless ruckus when they heard about people in their late teens and early 20's having sex.

I disagree LunarSD above comment because of this one from the source: "Child marriage denies girls of their childhood, deprives them of an education and robs them of their innocence."

Plus, by 18, your expected to know stuff. These are just kids. Boy, girl, they're just kids.

Let them enjoy those years. They'll have the rest of their lives to be miserable adults.

So in other words you agree, VocaloidKiss? Personally I think 18 is way too young for marriage and family making.

See --> http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2009/09/17/12-year-old-loli-bride-dies-in-childbirth/#comment-293433

But Genetics is Genetics whether we agree or disagree with it. It's possible to make kids when we're at that age because somewhere around 11 was our ancestor's choice of when to begin mating.

As I said above, "Puberty comes as the floor age of common sexual activity."

It's unviable in today's society because culture evolves faster than our DNA can keep up with.

I don't think 18 is necessary, but for these kinda countries, certainly at least 14-15 when the girl's body can handle a childbirth. Of course this has nothing to do with her psyche.

Sorry. Got the wrong impression. Yeah, I agree with all of that.

Lunar, I have to disagree this time.
　
The fact that girls can get pregnant before their natural tract for child birth is even big enough to allow for successful delivery is clearly a genetic flaw inherent to our species. The only reason we managed to survive so far is that our intelligence has always covered for our many biological shortcomings.
　
That does NOT mean we should allow this to happen just because it's possible. I'll take a wild guess here and say that the mortality rate isn't just "slightly higher". If the skull of a fetus is much larger than a girls pelvic opening, disaster ensues. That's common sense. Only reason why mortality might not be so high anymore is that - again - our intellect has provided us with an array of ways to save the lives of both mother and child.
　
So from a genetic viewpoint, 11 is still too young in most cases. Our ancestors were just lucky that they got away with it evolution-wise.
　
By the way, I'm not someone complaining about preteens having sex. In the case of humans: mating != breeding. I'm complaining about dem arabs treating girls like slaves and completely ignoring common sense while they're at it (I know you do too, just saying).

The devil is in the details.

If your genes allow young pregnancy, some of your descendants will try to make that a survival strategy.

In the case of one Peruvian bloodline, a female was able to deliver a viable offspring at age five.

http://youngest_mother.tripod.com/

Peruvian five-year-old Lina Medina, accompanied by her 11-month-old-son Gerardo, and Doctor Lozada who attended her son's birth, are shown in this 1940 file photo taken in Lima's hospital.

When her child was born by Caesarean section in May 1939, Medina made medical history, and is still the youngest known mother in the world.

Lina Medina's parents thought their 5-year-old daughter had a huge abdominal tumor and when shamans in their remote village in Peru's Andes could find no cure, her father carried her to a hospital.

Just over a month later, she gave birth to a boy.

Medina was born on September 27, 1933 in the small village of Paurange. She was only 5 years 8 months old at the birth of her child on Mother's Day, May 14, 1939.

I've read about this case, but you can't build an argument around that. There are always exceptions and strange phenomena.

For the majority of girls, having a child at less than 10 years means almost certain death without modern medical treatment.

LunarSD, lets look at the genetics.

We are able to have kids at a young age, sure, but there are NO advantages at ALL to have a child so young.

1. You cannot support it's life. You can give it milk, but you cannot defend it or anything else, nor would your husband be able to if he is 11.

2. The rate of death is higher to having it at a younger age.

3. The chances of the child dying or having defects are higher.

While genetically possibly, there are no actual advantages to be taken from this to be allowed, so if we are to speak from a standpoint of evolution, there is no reason for us to allow fucking kids, and that is coming from a point with no moral ground.

This would be interesting to run in a simulator.

In one corner we have a tribe of, let's say, Homo floresiensis [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis]. Pygmies among Pygmies, who may have evolved to be so small in order to make breeding sooner more viable. Their heads, and by extension their species' brains, were as much as 4 times smaller than our own. But their bodies were still up to 4 feet tall. Child birth, one would presume, was less of a problem for them.

And in the other corner we have a tribe of Homo sapiens. They're also capable of young pregnancy, but it's probably more of a vestige due to the high mortality rate.

I would posit that the reason child birth is so potentially lethal for them, requiring them to wait some time after puberty to breed & invent cultural traditions to enforce this socially, is that their large brains evolved recently. Meanwhile we still carry instincts that find petite-ness (see every Hollywood actress ever) sexual.

-

The Pygmies can replenish losses of members in their tribe more quickly, which would give them an advantage during mass-death scenarios such as war, famine, natural disasters and diseases.

They were also known to be fairly intelligent, using stone tools and fire even in spite of their smaller brain size.

The Homo sapiens would suffer greater losses in mass-death scenarios, but in the end we're the ones still standing... Perhaps as proof that the extra brain space and emphasis on nurturing intelligence and waiting to breed somehow beats out more frequent mating cycles?

...Unless we were the ones that killed them to make them extinct >.>

Yeah, I don't think the outcome would be any different. As I said, our intelligence and social behavior eventually compensated for this.
　
This still doesn't change the fact that it is a flaw innate to our species. Ergo, 11 years is too young even from a genetic viewpoint. But I admit I might just be arguing semantics here...

And I never argued against that. Just that the flaw is a recent issue, not a historic one.

Our culture invented a quick-and-dirty patch to fix it: repress your instincts until your tribe's coming-of-age ceremonies, usually several years post-puberty.

This still doesn't change the fact that it is a vestige of a faster-breeding/faster-dying past that may stick with our code indefinitely. Much the same way as our tailbones remain for no good reason.

"I would posit that the reason child birth is so potentially lethal for them, requiring them to wait some time after puberty to breed & invent cultural traditions to enforce this socially, is that their large brains evolved recently. Meanwhile we still carry instincts that find petite-ness (see every Hollywood actress ever) sexual."

I've always viewed it as a latency glitch.

By saying this I'm not trying to excuse child marriage at all.

I'm just offering proof that it isn't some random irrational event.

It exists and has a statistically high prevalency because of these evolutionary latencies we're stuck with. And it is yet another good reason to study genetic engineering and artificial intelligence, in the hope that we will be able to come up with a better "Homo sapien 2.0" much faster than nature has shown it's able to do it.

For everyone's sake, not just the children.

I suppose an ideal solution would be to change up our hormonal pattern, and make sure that baby carriage is only possible well after the physical traits of puberty have finished growing.

Would modern dietary habits affect the size of fetus skull as compared with our ancestors?

If that is the case then it would seem our intellect for cultivation unintentionally create problem for our biology.

I've got to agree with LunarSD here that indeed that humans were designed to mate early.
From reading texts about it a while back a woman's body is physically at its best at 14 to have a child.

Although I don't condone child marriage/pregnancies and feel sorry for the girl.

^ no arguing with that, mid-teens are perfectly capable of giving birth safely most of the time. But 12 year olds are generally not, I think we agree here too.

@Lunar:
Yeah, I'm familiar with that point of yours already. Still, there's something about that "latency glitch" theory that's bugging me. Looks like I failed conveying what exactly I mean. Childbirth at that age has always had a much higher potential for resulting in death for both mother and child, so it has always been a glitch. I don't argue that it could have had any number of evolutionary advantages, like forcing us to form strong societies, or making sure only those males who are capable of controlling themselves get to spread their genes (I pulled those right out of my ass, just trying to illustrate that I do understand where you're coming from). We did end up on top after all.

However, I don't think modern society puts very young mothers into any significant disadvantage, at least where I live. Actually, if we look at it this way, it has become less of an issue. In the developed world, girls can get all the treatment necessary to help them making it through alive and well. While in the past, there were no potential social disadvantages from having a child at an age where girls today are supposed to go to school, the fatality rate was much higher. Considering the former should not be an issue in modern social systems, early pregnancy should have become more acceptable. This is why I reject this logic. I want to look at the "flaw" from a strictly biological standpoint.

But it seems like we were talking about two slightly different things anyway. You're trying to say that people will keep doing it because this relict of our early evolution is still in our genes (true), while all I was trying to say is that people who advocate child marriage cannot use the genetic possibility for early pregnancy as an excuse, as the same DNA that allows for early pregnancy also destines the girls to a painful death, or at least totally unnecessary suffering (also true I'd say).

We're both right. ^^

Yeah, I'm familiar with that point of yours already. Still, there's something about that "latency glitch" explanation that's bugging me. Looks like I failed conveying what exactly I mean. Childbirth at that age has always had a much higher potential for resulting in death for both mother and child, so it has always been a glitch. I don't argue that it could have had any number of evolutionary advantages, like forcing us to form strong societies, or making sure only those males who are capable of controlling themselves get to spread their genes (I pulled those right out of my ass, just trying to illustrate that I do understand where you're coming from). We did end up on top after all.

However, I don't think modern society puts very young mothers into any significant disadvantage, at least where I live. Actually, if we look at it this way, it has become less of an issue. In the developed world, girls can get all the treatment necessary to help them making it through alive and well. While in the past, there were no potential social disadvantages from having a child at an age where girls today are supposed to go to school, the fatality rate was much higher. Considering the former should not be an issue in modern social systems, early pregnancy should have become more acceptable. This is why I reject this logic. I want to look at the "flaw" from a strictly biological standpoint.

But it seems like we were talking about two slightly different things anyway. You're trying to say that people will keep doing it because this relict of our early evolution is still in our genes (true), while all I was trying to say is that people who advocate child marriage cannot use the genetic possibility for early pregnancy as an excuse, as the same DNA that allows for early pregnancy also destines the girls to a painful death, or at least totally unnecessary suffering (also true I'd say).

We're both right. ^^

^ No arguing with that. Mid-teens are perfectly capable of giving birth safely. 12 year olds however are generally not; I'm sure we agree on that as well.
　
@Lunar:
Yeah, I'm familiar with that point of yours already. Still, there's something about that "latency glitch" explanation that's bugging me. Looks like I failed to convey what exactly I mean. Childbirth at that age has always carried a much higher risk of resulting in death for both mother and child, so it has always been a glitch. I don't argue that it could have had any number of evolutionary advantages, like forcing us to form strong societies, or making sure only those males who are capable of controlling themselves get to spread their genes (I pulled those right out of my ass, just trying to illustrate that I do understand where you're coming from). We did end up on top after all.
　
However, I don't think modern society puts very young mothers into any significant disadvantage, at least where I live. Actually, if we look at it this way, it has become less of an issue. In the developed world, girls can get all the treatment necessary to help them making it through alive and well. While in the past there were no potential social disadvantages from having a child at an age where girls today are supposed to go to school (especially way back when there was no society to speak of), the fatality rate was much higher. Considering the former should not be an issue in modern social systems, early pregnancy should have become more acceptable. This is why I reject the latency idea, the logic behind it that takes social factors into consideration also allows for conclusions that conflict with your initial intend. I want to look at it from a strictly biological standpoint.
　
But it seems like we were talking about two slightly different things anyway. You're trying to say that people will keep doing it because this relict of our early evolution is still in our genes (true), while all I was trying to say is that people who advocate child marriage cannot use the genetic possibility for early pregnancy as an excuse, as the same DNA that allows for early pregnancy also destines the girls to a painful death, or at least totally unnecessary suffering (also true I'd say).
　
We're both right. ^^
　
@Artefact: please leave my other two attempts to trick the spam filter where they are, I consider this the final version of my comment...

And together our arguments combine to form Logictron Sankaku 20X6!

　　　　　　　　　　/＼ヘヾｲ
　　　　　　　　　 |￣￣￣￣|　　
　　　　　　　　　 ＼＿_＿／　　
　　　　　　　　　　　( ﾟ ヮﾟ)　
　　　　　　　　　 __〃 ヽ〈＿　　
　 　　 　γ´⌒´-－ヾｖーヽ⌒ヽ-:,,
　 　 　／⌒　 ｨ 　　 ＿＿　　）; ｀ヽ-:,,　
　　 　/　　 　ﾉ＾ ､　 |<萬>|　 _人　　|　"-:,,
　　　 !　　,,,ノ（　　　 ￣￣　ﾉｒ;＾ >　 ）　　＼,
　　　 .|　　 <_ ＼ﾍ､,, ,　､ｒﾉ/＼ /:　　　　ヽ,,
　 　 　|ヽ_／＼ ）ゝ､__,　､_ｱ〃 ／　　　　　　　＼
　 　　 | ヽ､___ ヽ.=┬─┬〈　 ｿ　　　　　　　　　　"-.,
　　　　|　 　〈J　.〉､| キ |,　|ヽ-´　　　　　　　　　　　ゝ
　　　　.|　　　/""　| ム |:　| 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　ﾐ
　　　　 |　　　ﾚ　　:| チ .|　ﾘ　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　"-:,,
　　　　 |　　 /　　ﾉ|＿__|　|　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　"-:,,
　　　　 .|　　|　,,　ｿ　 ヽ　　） 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　,,,-ｰ"
　　　　　|　.,ゝ 　 ）　　ｲ ヽ ﾉ　　　　　　　　　　　　　,,,-ｰ"
　　　　　.|　ｙ　｀ﾚｌ　　 〈´　 ﾘ 　　　　　　　　　,,,-ｰ"
　　　　　 | /　　 ﾉ　　　|　　 |　　　　／ """"
　　　　　　ｌ￣￣/　　　ｌ￣￣|　　,,,-
　　　　　　 〉　〈 `ｰ-ｰ-|　　　|-ｰ"　
　　　　　 /　　::|　　　　（_　　 ＼
　　　　　(＿＿ﾉ　　　　　 ＼＿__）

Haha...

oh wow o_O

This some l33t Shift-JIS sk1llz you got there.

Impressive, glad there was some reward for reading all that text.

the moral of this story: only have butt-sex with loli's untill 16

Oh you, Anon.

That guy should have some shotgun barrels stuck up his ass, then fired simultaneously. That's probably about the same feeling the girl had.
Given that's it's Saudi Arabia, the others probably won't give a damn

02:52 dumbass

Hear hear!
We may be plagued with idiocy, but at least we aren't Saudi Arabia!

i'll take idiocy over ignorance anytime!

America has Both. I'm not sure my residency in the U.S. will be permanent. We're taught from a young age that the free market should dominate, but i don't see anything in our textbooks about not letting people be sentenced to death by insurance companies. +1 for brainwashing

Whichever modern nation looks the best in a few decades, i'll likely be visiting.

Anon 14:17 I hope you are aware of the fact that U.S has seen several attempts to reform their health care but in the end the insurence companys stopped it 1 way or another. Mostly buying the people trying to reform the health care or if that didn't work then buying enough people to oppose the reform.

So saying that U.S can will get the reform is a bit questionable. Also note that the idea of U.S having freemarket is a bit questionable when their goverment can't really say 'no' when big companys start demanding something becouse without taxes and brides etc. from those big companys U.S goverment would have to go through serious reform just keep itself from falling apart.

Irony: many insurance & pharma cos. are on the side of pres. for self-preservation. LMFAO. The ppl know what they want.

+1

*SPOILER WARNING*
(as if any of you whining scum in this comment pile are actually interested in reading Nobel Prize-winning authors anyway)

This article reminds me of the character Remedios Moscote from "One Hundred Years of Solitude" by Gabriel García Márquez.

11 for sex, 12 for babies = obviously jumping the gun.

-

On the other hand, the reason we reach puberty at ages like 9/10/11/12 years old is because that's when our ancestors were first making babies. Otherwise it would be older.

There's just no getting around that fact. Complain as much as you like, you will still fail Genetics 101.

If we started puberty at 18, these commenters would be raising their usual mindless ruckus when they heard about people in their late teens and early 20's having sex.

All these prototypical pedo-this pedo-that commenters are the usual modern unthinking drama sponges and angry opinionated refuse.

Not really worth bothering to write a comment about, but I'm bored and educating stupid people has pretty much turned into a reflex by now.

-- TL;DR --

12 is a good 20 years too soon to rationally
start raising kids into a society as complex as ours, and a twenty-something father should know better.

But calling people victims for choosing to use their instincts a solid 3 years after puberty hits (I started at 9 like most people I know) is just as stupid.

+1

I actually thought that was obvious, but apparently not, manners lack on the internet.

>12 is a good 20 years too soon to rationally
start raising kids into a society as complex as ours, and a twenty-something father should know better.

The wife doesn't need to do anything more than make babies.

In prehistoric times, women evolved to bear children from the early ages of 12,13 and 14 because women who reproduced at that age were most likely to be successful in passing on those genes. If having children at the ages of 12,13 and 14 were disadvantageous, these early child bearing traits would have been selected against through natural selection and women would not be able bear children at these early ages.
It is most likely that during these times, the chances of one succumbing to disease, starvation or injury were quite high. A female may not live to be the age of 18, but if she were to bear a child at the age of 13, then her passing would have little consequence to the continuation of her genes. This propensity to be able to bear children at an earlier and earlier age would have become realized over the course of many thousands of generations.

Human babies require the most parental care of all species on planet earth. For this reason, having a male provider to raise the child would drastically increase the child's ability to survive, reproduce and pass on its genes. This male provider would most likely be an older male who had the skills necessary to forage and hunt. The ability of the young 12, 13 or 14 year old mother to gather resources would have a diminished impact in the child's upbringing.

Of course, we no longer live on the savannas of Africa and we can no longer forage for food in the wilderness on our own. Raising a child from birth to reproductive age costs over $100,000.

Raise the socially acceptable age of child bearing too high, and fewer women will have children. (decreased fertility and less interest from males)

Lower the socially acceptable age of child bearing too low, and more mothers and children will end up without fathers for a provider. (18 year old men hardly have the resources to raise a family)

For the continuation of a sustainable society, the following arrangement, though politically incorrect, is necessary. Pair an older man with a stable job and resources (25-30 years old) with a younger woman who still has many of her fertile years ahead of her (14-18 years old).

LunarSD.... I applaude your efforts. And I agree with what your saying 100%. I also agree that the event in question was a total tragedy....although, she doesn't have to put up with his smelly farmer ass hump theshit out of her any more....

People, please stick to 2D when it comes to love..

@Tiedupinknots

Yeah, it's always a little emotional when you hear about article topics like these. But our evolved circumstances (physically, mentally and culturally) make it inevitable. Sad for the kid, for the husband's instincts, and for their shared culture which makes this situation a local minima that will recur over and over again.

But Hyper Police in your avatar... so good, nyah!

XD

@Anon 19:19

"It is most likely that during these times, the chances of one succumbing to disease, starvation or injury were quite high. A female may not live to be the age of 18, but if she were to bear a child at the age of 13, then her passing would have little consequence to the continuation of her genes. This propensity to be able to bear children at an earlier and earlier age would have become realized over the course of many thousands of generations."

What an well-rationalized point. The logical discord, yet evolved viability, of loli attraction has always fascinated me. This is yet another solid reason to add to why the phenomenon exists today.

Given how male and female fertility ages overlap, your analysis of the ~10 year coupling differential also lends credence to Ephebophilia and... hey wait a minute, I just noticed something.

A male having "Ephebophilia" (they do call it jail "bait" for a reason) is just as prevalent as a female having an attraction for older men during nubile child bearing ages. Yet said female attraction to older men starting from puberty on isn't classified as a paraphilia... From what I've read on it, people say it's too commonplace to be considered deviancy.

Thinking rationally, sexual deviancy is a classification always founded on commonness of the urge. How any one out of two mutually linked/evolved attractions be more or less common than the other o_O

Gerontophilia is the closest existing philia, but that's an attraction to seniors.

Wow, culture really knows how to discriminate and get away with it doesn't it? To the point that people aren't even aware of it happening, it just happens and maybe a handful of us notice it at some point or another.

Anyway, nice points all around everyone. Don't let the innumerable bugs in our cultural host program get to you ^_^

Homo sapien version 2.0 will be hitting the shelves sooner than we may think, and from it there will evolve a new and more rational and varied culture...

Let me start the slow clap because that was the most beautiful post I've seen on this kind of topic, SD.

Not this poser again. I bet you don't even know what is a particle in a box.

A particle that can move in a space surrounded by impenetrable barriers. Now then, why don't we get back to the topic at hand?

Kids are annoying. Why anyone seriously would want to marry one, I cannot fathom. Just about anyone under 20 (or better 30) is too unformed to waste attention on.

Maybe if times were still medieval this sort of relationship could scrape by. But not anymore.

Society is complex and getting more and more complex as technology and essential job skills become more mentally taxing.

10 or 20 years post-puberty is a long time to wait before submitting to the baby-making instinct, but take a good look at the requirements of the world of today.

It just makes more sense.

^
^
Way to go with a half-ass definition. I know more quantum mechanics than you know about vagina, poser. How about you derive the wave functions of a Helium atom using the Hartree-Fock/Self-Consistent Field method? Is that easy enough for you?

I'm sure that has perfect relevance to child birth and society...

Just about anyone under 50 (or better 60) is too unformed to waste attention on.

LunarSD, I don't think she was given to her husband because of her relationship skills. It's more likely she was a Loli slave/baby factory.

Baby factory? Spawning medieval swordsmen?

While you, Anonymous, like me, contribute nothing to the conversation making you an even bigger hypocrite throwing a tantrum.

Take your elitism back to 4chan, where it belongs.

Soooo...your society too then?

Eww...

I am!!!

Because it's don't protect you from SIDA.
Thanks to vatican bastard.

Don't you know? Condoms are banned in all strict religious societies, like that compound in Texas.

the fact you rofl made me lmao

the fact that you lmao makes me fap

WUT.

catholics suddenly lose their christianity? became jewish or something?

same shit

No but there are a bunch of sane people (not catholics) claiming to be christians too. We don't want to offend them now, do we?

don't mind the sane, they believe in god too.
and screw the edit function. It takes like 15 minutes to navigate there, because the site is just too damn slow. (And I think I have a pretty fast connection)

Priests are only applicable in catholicism, so it is wrong to say "Christian Priests". That's like saying the Book of Mormon is a christian book, but it's not, it's a mormon book. It doesn't matter if mormons are a christian cult.

You can only call something christian if it applies to EVERY christian sect. believing in jesus is christian. Priests are only catholic.

Incorrect.
There are Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran priests also.

Anon 14:21...

Not to nitpic and this is furthering the offtopic....

But, Technically mormons are not Christians...

The Christian Bible states quite clearly the words of Jesus Christ, "There will be NO more Prophets after me".

Hence the Mormon founder based a religon on Christianity, but separated from by useing false prophacy(according to Christian Faith).

Sorry...Descipleship Student...

You don't need to be sorry for being a discipleship student. Seeing you posting here proves that you can't really care about foolish stuff like christianity anyway.

15 is the best age biologically; and it's mainly because women are not ready to give birth until they become pregnant, younger girls tend to adapt faster. I do however find it hard to believe 12yos have fewer problems than older; unless you're talking like 45+...

Different female humans have different anatomies and metabolisms.

Ideal age for childbirth must be customized - the medical types call this "gynecological age."

One woman might be ready at 18, another might be ready at 20, but both would have a "gynecological age" of (e.g.) 18.

18 to 25 seem to be the best child-bearing years for a large number of women. Undoubtedly many healthy teenage girls could bear children without caesarian sections.

18-22 (look at the research, there's a distinct difference between 22 and 23) is the best age for mothering a single child, because the mother can take it better, however 15 is considered the best age traditionally as it is an age that natural births are still exceptionally high (15-18 is about the same chances as 22-27) however it 1. gives a longer time to mother more children, and 2. allows the mother to healthily give birth for longer. Both Anons have a point, if you want a traditional family with lots of kids do it at 15, if you're more into these modern familettes with only 1 or 2 children (3 at a push, but more than that you're still better off starting younger) then catch them 18-22.

Like I said once her already, the youngest mother ever recorded was 5 and not in puberty. A female actually got everything she need for pregnancy before puberty when her body grows.

No.. the girl you are talking about was merely an extreme case, and had started puberty well before what is considered normal for a woman..

Women/Girls starting puberty at precocious ages is not unheard of..

Actually you can't have puperty in that age if you look at the medical definations of puperty.

There is an age limit included the definition? So that a child can't be considered in puberty even if all other biological conditions have been met? That's kinda hard to believe. At least I couldn't find any hard age limits on wiki.

Huh. Death by dick, eh? I mean, it's actually kinda funny, if you think long and hard about it.

Aww, crap. I didn't mean to reply to this post. I hit reply, and then I changed my mind and decided to start a new one by hitting the reply button at the bottom of the page. Unfortunately, it still treated the message as a reply to a specific post. Weird, huh?

@ Anon 06:41

That's a common Sankaku bug that Artefact's probably too amused with to ever fix.

Everyone learns it the hard way -_-;

'Comment by motaku96
17-09-2009 05:05 # !
Actually you can't become pregnant before the girl goes through puberty and starts releasing ovaries.'

Girls do not release ovaries.

Girls release eggs from ovaries.

Boys do not release testicles.

Boys release sperm from testicles.

Learn to speak English.

/\ Yess.... But for boys one does need to wait for the testes to drop or release into the scrotum proper....

But we all got the gist of what anon ment....

Wrong Ayu.

Not really, special since many females are here and nobody here got anything against common feminismn which is about equality and not discrimination of men like at radical feminismn. Also if females are worthless besides for making childs, you are the exact same thing.

"Captain, the troll readings are off the scale!"

Given the slight chance you're actually serious, go die in a fire. Hating feminism (or more precise, hating female-superiority groups), does not equal hating females.

I can't wait until you, your brethren and that abomination you call a religion are wiped off the face of our earth. You're the worst kind of scum to ever disgrace this planet.

I'm a man and I beleive in equality of men and women.

Why should women be denied the right to learn or to work?

Your reasoning, that women should only give birth and take care of the home, has something of the stone age in it. It's what our monkey ancestors did 100,000 years ago. Ugh! Woman stay in cave! Man go kill Mammoth! We've come a long way since then, though obviously you're are still clinging to the way of the monkey.

As for religion, I'd assume any decent religion would preach love for your brothers and sisters, aswell as tolerance and acceptance. If we are truly noble creatures, created in the image of our lord (lol), then none of us have the right to look down upon and discriminate another man or woman or child.

Look at the result of "equality" so many family suffer and blow up after a 'mariage' of 2 persons who don't care about they're children. Equality is a human word so it's wrong by definition because we don't know The truth.

So treating women like slaves will ensure that families care for their children more? The logic is astounding.

Families getting destroyed has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with people in general.

motaku96, you're the idiot who talks about "releasing ovaries" instead of "releasing ova," so you're obviously pretty low on the IQ scale. Are you sure you're capable of discerning the difference between idiots and normal people? Even if you're sure - who gives a damn about your opinion?

At leaast motaku96 doesn't hide behind the anon feature...

Sadly, some ppl think that way.

lolz0rs, I'd sure like to see that physician who states that a 12 year old is less likely to die during childbirth than a physically fully developed adult (which of course is still lower than 18 years, but that's not the point). The fatal flaw in your logic is that you group 12 year olds together with teenagers.

By the way smart-ass, you're the one who started claiming things, so the burden of proof is on you.

"The fatal flaw in your logic is that you group 12 year olds together with teenagers."

12 year olds _are_ ten-agers.

The teenage years are from ages 13 to 19. Like thirteen, fourteen......

^This. In case susume hasn't noticed, many Chinese haet Japanese, Filipinos haet Japanese, Japanese haet N. Koreans, S. Koreans haet Japanese (if they make fun of them in any fashion) & vice-versa. I could go on all day and give examples.

Also, is that bridge in Alaska? I'd buy it for scrap.

They evolved for a bit, then stagnated. And then they started to de-evolve to a level lower than what they started out with.
　
Besides, they didn't "create" algebra. Many ancient cultures thousands of years before them had advanced mathematical knowledge. They just happened to re-invent it after it had been lost for the umpteenth time.

and the Westerners claimed it was theirs.
It seems anything profitable to the West is OKAY to the world and anything profitable to Muslims is not right. Stupid world we live in. Biased. And downright moronic.

How can you know the girl wasn't raped? Is it written somewhere in the article? Any mention of her approving the marriage, and consenting to sex? In all likelihood, this WAS the result of a rape. Most muslim girls who get married off resist their new owner at first. It usually takes a few months of beating them into submission until they just let it happen, and even then it continues to be rape.

Every man has the right to rape his wife. If you disagree, may you not for long.

Use Google man, it does wonders.

Silly anon. 300 has nothing to do with the above post, and Islam first appeared around the 6th century. And have you ever heard of the Berbers invasion of Spain and Southern France? The Battle of Tours? The Reconquista?

Tada!

http://www.sankakucomplex.com/forums/topic.php?id=1047#post-26596

+1000, anon.