12-Year-Old Loli Bride Dies in Childbirth

pregnant-loli-checkup

A 12-year-old girl given to a 24-year-old man as a bride died after being made to bear his child, who also died.

The Yemeni girl was only 11 when she was given to her husband, who works as a farmer in the notoriously fertile land of Saudi Arabia.

She subsequently gave birth to his son, stillborn, and then died of internal bleeding which doctors were unable to stop.

Yemen is a nation where child marriage is rife, with the government itself estimating a quarter of all girls are married by the age of 15. These girls suffer mortality rates during childbirth five times that of women in their twenties.

A number of Arab and Islamic nations are notorious for such practices, and it does not appear modernity will be reaching any of these places any time soon…

Via AP.

Leave a Comment

290 Comments

  • > it does not appear modernity will be reaching any of these places any time soon…

    Good.

    They know the true nature of women and do everything they can to keep them in their place, unlike the “enlightened” west which has allowed their true bestial nature to come out.

    Women in their 40’s and 50’s have much higher rates of all sorts of complications in pregnancies, from downs syndrome, to miscarriages, and more. I don’t see anyone trying to ban older women getting pregnant.

  • > it does not appear modernity will be reaching any of these places any time soon…

    Good.

    They know the true nature of women do everything they can to keep them in their place, unlike the “enlightened” west which has allowed their true bestial nature to come out.

    Women in their 40’s and 50’s have much higher rates of all sorts of complications in pregnancies, from downs syndrome, to miscarriages, and more. I don’t see anyone trying to ban older women getting pregnant.

  • Being a Muslim myself; I am disgusted and wish for these sorts of things to stop in these countries. Them hiding behind religion doesn’t make it right. Any sort of harm to a women is 100 against Islam. It hurts me hearing groups say they do this because Islam or specifically the Quran says it. This is not true and they are ignorant.

  • I’m still wondering what’s ganna happen when one day a man from an islamic country who is married to a say… 12 or 13 yr old girl decides to move to the states. Wonder what’s going to happen, will he be arrested for child molestation XD.

  • BloodThirstyNogitsune says:

    this sort of thing doesn’t surprise me age difference between the husband and bride, how sick it is, the death. heck the world’s youngest Mother was 5!

    the world’s youngest mother (in 1939) was a 5 year both she and her son survived the birth. the son thought she was his sister but later learned the truth age 10. he died age 40 and the mother also gave birth to a second son 33 years after the first.

  • Fking retards. As soon as I read this, I knew it would be spammed with comments saying things like “omg, that fker! he’ll burn in hell for what he did!” based on the fact that people in other countries don’t agree with their view of age of consent.

    I hope these people know that more than 3/4 of the world has an age of consent under 18, yet go around with an undeserved sense of self righteousness, trying to push their views on everyone else in the world and bash those that don’t agree.

  • So… just like most of the world, First, Second, or Third. The real difference is that she didn’t have modern medical trained experts with proper equipment? Saudi Arabia does have a lot of good hospitals and medical professionals — but they might not have had a proper female doctor around to treat her in time.

  • Religion is quite humorous, your right. Be it life after death or reincarnation, it serves only to keep humanity in bondage. The sad thing is that their religion has spread throughout the world, albeit in small doses. We need a new religion, free of such suffering, and we need to teach it to them. In spades. Bitches will pay for this, dearly.

    • Maybe you could formulate a coherent argument how “life after death” keeps one in bondage vs annihilationism when you die and be you the best person or the worst pig, you share the same fate.

      BTW there are atheists and agnostics who believe in life after death too. Just look at Roger Penrose, one of the top minds in physics and mathematics.

    • Perhaps, but referring to little girls who are used as sex objects as lolis, gives insight into people who use the term. Basically no compassion and were child sex legal many would probably practice it. Thank goodness some laws keep many of these jerks (who refer to children as “lolis”) away from children, and when they break them, it’s time to meet Bubba in prison. These people don’t last long there.

    • “Its sad that in this day and age acts like this are still condoned.”

      You think just because your sick feminist anti-man society happens to be the most powerful that you can deny men the right to have young females of childbearing age as wives.

      You think that?

      Well some men don’t agree with you, and they are willing to fight and kill you before you indoctrinate all their youth against men’s liberties and pro-women’s rights.

      Go fuck yourself scumbag.

  • maybe we could get rid of religion = but know one would listen to that idea and why worrie about 2d girls wat are they going to do come out of the scrren have sex then jump back in the screen and my condolence may the rest of her family be brutally murder

  • Spoiler Warning
    ( as if any of you 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. I think it was having to carry a pair of twins that couldn’t move about in her tiny 11 year old belly that did her in.

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

    And being forced into marriage basically is slavery, so Artefact tagged this rationally.

    • Regardless of whether this particular girl was forced, there are doubtless many girls her age who are eager to try to get pregnant – whether inside or outside of marriage makes little difference.

      If you intend to protect the lives of such girls, you will have to deny them sexual freedom. You can either use an existing system of rules or make a new one.

      Islam and Christianity get a bad rap for causing various practical problems as they try to deny various freedoms.

      However, no matter what system of rules you use to deny human freedom, there will be some hard cases that slip through the cracks.

      Islam or Hinduism, democracy or monarchy, communism or aristocracy – you’re going to end up falling into some kind of system. And you’re going to end up causing some tragedies.

  • Some times I wonder if some people are fit to live.
    This makes me want to do something involving a high power rocket , about 50 feet of 150# test fishing line and the husband’s reproductive organs.

    • Why? Because he dared impregnate a fertile female? Because they didn’t have a doctor?

      This happens to older women aswell. Alot.

      You are saying cliche shit to curry favor (in your mind) with your feminist society. Your society should have something with high powered rockets done to it.

  • and i thought red states were retarded. at least americans know this kind of thing is wrong. this is fucking culture to them. if this were a century ago a european nation would’ve invaded them and made them succumb to christian values. too bad no one thought oil would be useful back then.

      • The Arabic thread is overrated. Big empires have the tendency to fall apart over time, especially after their leader dies.

        Also, you are watching too much 300. Those guys were Persians and they convert to Islam some 600 years after the battle of Thermopylae (the battle where led by king Leonidas).

        The worst Arabic invasion that managed to get a grip over the Balkans for 5 centuries comes much later during the reign of the Byzantine and later Holy Roman empire. That’s around 1500 years later.

        • 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?

    • The funny thing is that rape actually makes a lot of sense from an evolutionary standpoint. It’s a pretty good way to assure your genes get spread around.

      Doesn’t change the fact that it’s morally reprehensible, though.

      • this girl wasn’t raped though. in fact, this story has nothing to do with rape. just because some countries have the concept of “statutory rape” (i.e. sex with a minor), doesn’t mean it has anything to do with real rape.

        • 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.

      • No it doesn't. Females only accepting males that exhibit a set of superior characteristics (depending on the specific species), which is innate in all animals that employ sexual reproduction and in which the individual is comparatively independent from other individuals (as opposed to species that form hives, like ants, bees, you get the idea), is one of the mechanisms that ensure only superior genes get passed on to succeeding generations. The fact that most males respect getting rejected is what makes this evolutionary strategy effective.
         
        If every male animal that gets rejected by a female resorts to rape, you'd have a bunch of inferior retards running around that are more likely to fail later in live. And in fact, rape is rather uncommon among all organisms.

  • Wheres Agnes and EN when the likes of 12yr old’s in Yemen need them. I have more respect for a 10 yr old girl named Nujood Ali then the people mentioned above. She didn’t have an international organization and the funding they do but she sure stood up for herself and got a divorce.

    Stories like these make me believe that these groups truly dont care for their causes and just want that money to continue rolling in

    /endrant

    • Never assume human actions are anything but egoistic.
      You have to be really naive to believe all those humanitarian organization are held together by the goodness of people’s hearts. There ain’t no such thing, and even if there is, human society makes sure to stamp on anyone who ever tries to adapt to a different mindset.

      Our social behavior is so primitive that I find it laughable when some people try to difference humanity as something far superior to the other species of this planet.

      • Honestly, I think there’s a racist component, there. The senior EN types probably all think of Arabs/Berbers/Persians/etc as terrorists-in-training who can’t reasonably be expected to civilize themselves.

        But Japan? “Oh they’re salvageable, we just need to cure them of their perverted 2D porno. plus, they’re easily intimidated.”

        And if you’re about to tell me how Agnes Chan can’t be racist towards Asians, I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you.

        • ^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.

  • Did the commentors from sankaku went through some major changes? Condolences to the girls? What’s going on? I thought this was a fun site and expected mindless comments like “If she was 2D this wouldn’t have turned out this way”, “Yemen seems to be the place to go” or something similar. Please people, save your morals for serious sites.

    Anyway, Yemen seems to be the place my condolences go,…

    • This is not 4chan, my friend. We don’t need to try hard to be Internet tough guys and make fun on people’s death (all the time) to be so-called Internet superheroes.

      Plus i believe, aside from the fact that the victim is a loli, Sanconners (Troll Anons don’t count) are probably getting more sympathize over these kind of cases which constantly popping out in this site.

      • Yeah, I know this site just about an year or so. There were always different kind of comments, but here I miss the fun comments a little, like “Vid/Pics or it didn’t happen.”

        Feels kinda awkward to read a site you visit for fun and get all those serious seeming comments to read.

    • Well you know most people joke around here.
      People began stereotyping sankaku also mostly becouse of anons
      Anons are not actualy sankaku user.

      Still medicine sucks there,i wonder if they have something against ceasars cut there.Or maybe they both wished to try a natural birth.

      Anyway my condolences also.

      • I assume you are talking about Cesarean section. Since the husband is a farmer, I doubt that they can afford the procedure. Human female pelvis is really against the odd in nature in that the opening is actually smaller than a human fetus skull(full term). Natural child birth was probably too much for her to handle, even C-section is probably not foolproof. To tell you the truth I would much rather scrubbing in for ampututation/trauma than a C-section, it smells bad and it’s always a freaking mess, not elegant at all. I really doubt a 12-years old can handle a tug of war with her uterus. Also cannnot rule out other problems like preeclampsia, etc.

  • That’s sad. Putting aside the issue of when a girl can be considered a woman and give her consent to have sex, these people are morons for ignoring basic biology: A preteen’s body is not ready to give birth to a child, even though they may be sexually mature, and not all women, regardless of age, can have a natural birth.

  • And this is news….. why? The fact is that many grown women everyday die of having babies…. fact is that for 12-18 year olds, the rate of dying is LESS when taken as a percentage of those giving birth than for older women.

  • Horrible death for the girl and her baby. She suffered three days birthing and probably lots of pain months prior since her body wasn’t ready to have a baby yet. RIP mother and baby. Now its a good thing us humans can’t cast spells like characters do in computer games isn’t it? Those people who mutilate and butcher humans would live no more if us humans could.

    • Hey, she only ‘suffered’ for three days because they were too STUPID to give her a C-section after the first 12 hours in full labor, totally dilated, which is the standard even for GROWN WOMEN in the United States and most other 1st and 2nd world countries.

  • Stupid westerners. This is how polite society treats its women. We don’t let them run around in short skirts and act like sluts like you do. Feminism is evil and our culture rightly rejects it. We understand that woman are only good for child birth. That’s why they are pressured to marry young. Otherwise they are viewed as worthless, which is true.

    • “Stupid westerners. This is how polite society treats its women. We don’t let them run around in short skirts and act like sluts like you do. Feminism is evil and our culture rightly rejects it. We understand that woman are only good for child birth. That’s why they are pressured to marry young. Otherwise they are viewed as worthless, which is true.”

      I agree with you. Females should be married when they are able to have children. Any woman who is pregnant has a chance of dying, the way to prevent this is to, if the birth is clearly difficult (has been going on for hours) is to go to a hospital (only when there are difficulties). The reason that pregnant girls in the US and UK don’t die is because where there are complications there is a doctor.

      Anon: can you join the forum at http://mens-right.net/forum . It would be nice to hear from an anti-women’s rights, pro-men muslim or arab for once; most muslims on the net are pro-feminism and denounce those who marry young women before the age of 16 or 18. They also are happy that the “west” is putting up girls schools everywhere so as to delay the marraige of females and to make them not want to marry the men by teaching ideas such as that the female has the right to concent or not to the marraige (and thus hold out for the richest man), that men may not have relations with their wives with out concent (marital rape), etc etc etc. Women’s activists are destroying the world of men, they are instituting the rule of the animal kingdoms: the females choose who mates and who’s lineage dies off… and they mostly all choose the “biggest”/”baddest” male and the rest of the troupe … well they can go suck it.

      –MikeeUSA–

    • You people postin in a troll thread….

      and if this anon isn’t trollin, well, someone put him (and people who think like him) out of his misery.

      (and I really can’t wait till the Middle East runs out of oil, so they can go back to being ignored again)

    • Or in other words “if we wait til they know what they’re doing, we would actually need to work to get a wife”. Fucking pathetic. Sounds to me like that whole society is fucked up. I think it’s time to make some (forced) changes.

      • Hoping and wishing won’t kill your enemies.

        If you want to kill, try a more reliable method, like a pipe bomb or a pistol.

        If you want to kill people who flame you on the Internet, learn how to track IP numbers, and set up traps so that you can double-check that your targets aren’t behind proxies.

        In short, learn the tricks that any private investigator knows. Then go commit murder. Have fun.

      • My mother is not a feminist whore. She is a proper woman who supports traditional morality. She knows that a woman’s proper place is in the home. She is a lovely woman, unlike most western females.

        Seriously though, why is everyone so upset at my other comment? I thought that we all hated feminism here?

        • 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.

        • 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.

        • 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.

        • “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.

        • 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.

      • Actually, it’s neither healthy nor non-healthy. The fact is that girls 12-18 have LESS problems giving birth as a percentage than older women do.

        Why, I don’t know. The common knowledge is that the older, ‘bigger’ female would have an easierr time giving birth, but that is not the case in the slightest usually.

        I will say one thing…. if the girl couldn’t birth the baby naturally after 12 hours in full labor, they should have fucking well given her a caescaren section.

        • 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.

        • 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.

        • 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+…

    • May she rest well

      I respect there culture but I do not respect the young giving birth at such an age.

      I mean it is a given fact that a pre teen or a young teen is not developed enough for child birth.

      Sure go ahead and marry but hold back on the baby making till she is at least developed enough.

    • I simply have to ask:

      To whom you want to express condolences, to the paedophilic husband, who made her suffer till her death, even though she was still a child? To her parents, who sold her? To their society, that doesn’t give a shit about women and children?

      I instead want them to burn in hell, or rather here on earth.

      Only that girl’s child may be the one we may feel sorry for, but he will probably end up as just another tormenter..

      Anon, you idiot.

      • I think there are people that feel pain when know about these news, cause they are humans, and that´s why he commented that.
        And, common, it´s obvious that the girl was going to die, or something like that, her body was too small, so, we can say that everyone involved was just ignorant, after all, we are talking about saudi arabia

      • I don’t think it due to the fact he/she was or is not Muslim or another other religion on that matter. This article only points out that this was a culture idea that has been followed for many years..

        • @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…

        • Tiedupinknots says:

          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..

        • 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).

        • >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.

        • *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.

        • 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.

        • Metal Masquerade, you’re a retarded idiot for bringing up an irrelevant strawman argument. The free market has nothing to do with universal health insurance. Japan has free markets. Most of Europe has free markets. Australia has free markets. Canada has free markets. I could go on and on. The US will have health care reform soon but it won’t stop having a free market because of it.

          And if you enjoy living in shitty countries that tax the middle class 40-50% so that people who refuse to get a job can live like kings, then be my guest, go move to a shitty country like England.

        • Metal Masquerade says:

          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.

        • 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

        • 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      \___)

        • ^ 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…

        • 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 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. ^^

        • 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.

        • 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.

        • 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.

        • 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…

        • This would be interesting to run in a simulator.

          In one corner we have a tribe of, let’s say, 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 >.>

        • 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.

        • 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.

        • 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.

        • 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).

        • 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 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.

        • 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 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!

        • 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…