Is it true, or is there supportive evidence, for an idea that the
children of young mothers have a propensity for more health problems?
My mother became pregnant with me when she was thir****, the father
being six****. I could come up with books full of alternative
explanations for the various physical and mental health problems I've
had, but I have also myself had an inkling that people who conceive
when they are 'not finished' themselves would possibly have
children who are a bit biologically askew. Partly because of having
unsettled minds and partly being otherwise in biochemical turmoil.
Neither of my biological parents - I was adopted - have been in
good health, and have almost never been in employment despite being 47
and 50. My problems are food-related - both an eating disorder and
something more, I think demonstrably, somatic - skin problems,
depression, anxiety, anhedonia and a penis under six inches erect.
My upbringing with my adoptive family was no calming resolution, but
unlike when I was in my ****s and beginning to study Sociology and
Psychology I don't feel convinced that my upbringing was the main
problem. (I'm not discounting those other ideas though.)
For a while I was even worried that I might be a product of ******.
But I have no overt signs to support that fear, for example no real
deformities or learning difficulties.
Essays, articles, statistics, informed views invited.

Is it true, or is there supportive evidence, for an idea that the
children of young mothers have a propensity for more health problems?
My mother became pregnant with me when she was thir****, the father
being six****. I could come up with books full of alternative
explanations for the various physical and mental health problems I've
had, but I have also myself had an inkling that people who conceive
when they are 'not finished' themselves would possibly have
children who are a bit biologically askew. Partly because of having
unsettled minds and partly being otherwise in biochemical turmoil.
Neither of my biological parents - I was adopted - have been in
good health, and have almost never been in employment despite being 47
and 50. My problems are food-related - both an eating disorder and
something more, I think demonstrably, somatic - skin problems,
depression, anxiety, anhedonia and a penis under six inches erect.
My upbringing with my adoptive family was no calming resolution, but
unlike when I was in my ****s and beginning to study Sociology and
Psychology I don't feel convinced that my upbringing was the main
problem. (I'm not discounting those other ideas though.)
For a while I was even worried that I might be a product of ******.
But I have no overt signs to support that fear, for example no real
deformities or learning difficulties.
Essays, articles, statistics, informed views invited.

james michael howard

A possible explanation in two parts: First, it is my hypothesis that all growth
and development and later maintenance of the adult state rely on DHEA. DHEA
levels peak around age 20-25, therefore, young women much below this age are not
at peak reproductive age. Since a mother makes DHEA for herself and her fetus,
a young mother will use her DHEA in competition with a fetus, thus reducing
optimal growth and development for her offspring and adversely affecting
herself. This lack of optimal development may result in problems later in life
for the offspring.

Second, testosterone increases impulsiveness and aggression. People with higher
testosterone become ***ually active, earlier than those of lower testosterone.
Hence, people who cannot control their impulses may produce a pregnancy,
eariler. Also, testosterone reduces DHEA levels. (Actually, testosterone
reduces conversion of DHEAS, the source of DHEA, to DHEA, which means that
available levels of DHEA are reduced.) So a combination of excessive
testosterone and low DHEA may be an explanation.

So, these two explanations combine into one explanation, that is, low DHEA may
be the source of this problem. (Please see http://www.anthropogeny.com for more
detail.) James Michael Howard

malcolm

Children of ****age mothers do worse than other children on a whole host of
measures. However most of the reasons are social rather than biological.
****aged mothers tend to be poor, tend not to have a stable relationship
with the child's father, tend to have poor education as well as be more
involved in crime and substance abuse.

Evolution is quite clever, and prevents juveniles from getting pregnant
until they are physically ready for it. I looked up some papers and couldn't
find any firm evidence for a biological (in the narrow sense) disadvantage
to children of ****aged mothers, and some evidence against when you looked
at young mothers who had two children whilst young. The second child didn't
tend to be noticeably better off than the first. However it is extremely
difficult to tease apart all the confounding factors when doing research
into humans.

I think that basically there is no medical reason why ****agers shouldn't
give birth. That we discourage it is a social decision.

I'm not a doctor and I wouldn't dish out medical advice over Usenet if I
was. We don't know what causes borderline psychological/psychiatric problems
like eating disorders. Skin problems can be due to an over-sensitive immune
system, which is partly genetic and partly a result of modern parasite free
lifestyles, but there can be other reasons. There is no obvious connection
between young motherhood and any of these health issues, but we are dealing
largely with ignorance.

james michael howard

A possible explanation in two parts: First, it is my hypothesis that all growth
and development and later maintenance of the adult state rely on DHEA. DHEA
levels peak around age 20-25, therefore, young women much below this age are not
at peak reproductive age. Since a mother makes DHEA for herself and her fetus,
a young mother will use her DHEA in competition with a fetus, thus reducing
optimal growth and development for her offspring and adversely affecting
herself. This lack of optimal development may result in problems later in life
for the offspring.

Second, testosterone increases impulsiveness and aggression. People with higher
testosterone become ***ually active, earlier than those of lower testosterone.
Hence, people who cannot control their impulses may produce a pregnancy,
eariler. Also, testosterone reduces DHEA levels. (Actually, testosterone
reduces conversion of DHEAS, the source of DHEA, to DHEA, which means that
available levels of DHEA are reduced.) So a combination of excessive
testosterone and low DHEA may be an explanation.

So, these two explanations combine into one explanation, that is, low DHEA may
be the source of this problem. (Please see http://www.anthropogeny.com for more
detail.) James Michael Howard

malcolm

Children of ****age mothers do worse than other children on a whole host of
measures. However most of the reasons are social rather than biological.
****aged mothers tend to be poor, tend not to have a stable relationship
with the child's father, tend to have poor education as well as be more
involved in crime and substance abuse.

Evolution is quite clever, and prevents juveniles from getting pregnant
until they are physically ready for it. I looked up some papers and couldn't
find any firm evidence for a biological (in the narrow sense) disadvantage
to children of ****aged mothers, and some evidence against when you looked
at young mothers who had two children whilst young. The second child didn't
tend to be noticeably better off than the first. However it is extremely
difficult to tease apart all the confounding factors when doing research
into humans.

I think that basically there is no medical reason why ****agers shouldn't
give birth. That we discourage it is a social decision.

I'm not a doctor and I wouldn't dish out medical advice over Usenet if I
was. We don't know what causes borderline psychological/psychiatric problems
like eating disorders. Skin problems can be due to an over-sensitive immune
system, which is partly genetic and partly a result of modern parasite free
lifestyles, but there can be other reasons. There is no obvious connection
between young motherhood and any of these health issues, but we are dealing
largely with ignorance.

peter f

I can't remember having encountered any insightfully interpreted, and
available off the shelf, statistical studies relevant to "effects of having
had young parents".

However, one can with perfectly science-aligned certainty say this:

If the environment during infancy and early childhood is far enough from
ideal
(i.e., if it significantly fails to fulfill an infant's primal needs) - as
may AND may not (N.B.) be the
result of very young people becoming parents - then this can (most generally
put) be translated
[via alterations of the production of nerve-growth factors and hormone
levels; and
correspondingly altered interconnections between, and average firing
frequencies of, neurons]
to a less resilient and problematic "brain-body system" of people with such
a
(less than optimal developmental) background.

One should not assume that EVERY undesirable symptom is necessarily an
effect of unfavorable
environmental features during one's most formative early years and months.

More said with science-aligned (and 'far from inEPT') certainty:

Your inkling is not wrong, because social, cultural-historical, and
epigenetic 'vectors of inheritance' - together with influences and factors
(on/of our development as individuals) that are relatively more randomly and
readily varying - can most certainly cause "people who conceive when they
are 'not finished' themselves [to have] children that are a bit biologically
[as in somatically, psychosomatically, psychologically] askew".

Peter

peter f

I can't remember having encountered any insightfully interpreted, and
available off the shelf, statistical studies relevant to "effects of having
had young parents".

However, one can with perfectly science-aligned certainty say this:

If the environment during infancy and early childhood is far enough from
ideal
(i.e., if it significantly fails to fulfill an infant's primal needs) - as
may AND may not (N.B.) be the
result of very young people becoming parents - then this can (most generally
put) be translated
[via alterations of the production of nerve-growth factors and hormone
levels; and
correspondingly altered interconnections between, and average firing
frequencies of, neurons]
to a less resilient and problematic "brain-body system" of people with such
a
(less than optimal developmental) background.

One should not assume that EVERY undesirable symptom is necessarily an
effect of unfavorable
environmental features during one's most formative early years and months.

More said with science-aligned (and 'far from inEPT') certainty:

Your inkling is not wrong, because social, cultural-historical, and
epigenetic 'vectors of inheritance' - together with influences and factors
(on/of our development as individuals) that are relatively more randomly and
readily varying - can most certainly cause "people who conceive when they
are 'not finished' themselves [to have] children that are a bit biologically
[as in somatically, psychosomatically, psychologically] askew".

Peter

Thank you for this, you three. It gives me some things ot look up -
being from a Humanities background I don't know what DHEA is. I do
feel disturbed by the facts presented here, despite my inklings.
Though you stress cutural factors also, and I can see that it is far
from 'unnatural' for young parents to conceive, I do now feel a bit
weird and deficient, as I would if I'd found myself to be the product
of ****** or parents with learning difficulties. I've achieved quite a
lot that people from the average working class background like mine
don't, like a degree and published poems, but there is still something
to come to terms with here.

william morse

Whatever you find in your further pursuits, please don't feel weird and
deficient. If there is one thing evolution teaches us, it is that each of
us is special. Each of us is only here because all our parents for the last
several billion years managed to survive and have children. You could
replay evolution for as many times as you wanted and while there might be
someone like you, the odds of _you_ appearing again are infinitesimal. So
think of yourself as the winner of the biggest megalottery in the universe,
and try to enjoy the ride.

Yours,

Bill Morse