I am talking about the peak range so 15 + 30 = 45. A 30-34 year old woman is 500x more likely to give birth than a 10-14 year old, and over 100x more vs a 45-55 year old woman. https://www.childtrends.org/indicators/fertility-and-birth-r... (scroll down). You do see even younger and older births, but at even lower rates.
So yes these births do add up, but are effectively ignorable when analyzing trends.
> . A 30-34 year old woman is 500x more likely to give birth than a 10-14 year old
that's heavily skewed by the fact that far more 30-34 year olds are trying to have kids while most 10-14 year olds are either not having sex or actively trying to avoid pregnancy.
I'm sure you're joking, but if there is a massive body of research on 10 year olds having sex I'm not going to go googling for it at work, but I think it's safe to say that more women in their 30s are trying for babies than 10 year olds.
The stats are more clear on 45 year old women having ~1/3 the odds of becoming pregnant and after that over 90% of any pregnancies spontaneously aborting. It’s only after that that the odds are further lowered from ~3% to below 1% because they also have less unprotected sex. Still, based on relative odd it seems that biology is playing a significantly larger role than culture.
Odd that the youngest bracket (14–19) is bounded with a minimum age of 14. There have been a handful of births from younger mothers in the past 30 years (a 10 year old girl in 2006 in the US). Insignificant in the total graph, but weird to exclude given that the oldest bracket is open-ended (>50). Just renaming the bracket to ≤19 would suffice.
The youngest documented mother ever was 5 years and 7 months (Peru, 1939).
