Really? Then what's this supposed to mean:
No, no one has argued why it is safe for a 10 year old to give birth. Which was my argument. As I just spent an entire post trying to point out to you. And now you think you've dismissed that argument by saying there's cultures practicing child marriage...? Anyway to entertain your sidetracking, I don't know much about Indian cultures, but in your other example of muslims, I'm pretty sure the average age historically has been significantly higher than 10. The example given of Muhammad is just an extreme (even if you believe it) and should not be taken as the norm. It's an example of a political marriage that the upper class are pressured to take. As is the case with Europe, normal people probably married much later.As for ignoring your other arguments others have dealt with them and also pretty sure i pointed out how to this day there are cultures that practice child marriage and just overlook the ensuing child rape.
Completely besides the point. Whether they matured emotionally/mentally earlier or not is irrelevant to whether they can give birth safely.People also actually matured then unlike today or so it seems. The hardships in life back then EASILY could have made even a 10 year old about as mature as a modern "adult" a term i use loosely since it seems a fair number if not most supposed "adults" of my generation are stuck in a mental pit of perpetual pubescence. So they woukd have been more mentally able.
=/RELATIVE a girls ability to concieve is most likely relative to the age she first entered puberty. For instance lets say we delay puberty in a girl till age 20 will that 20 year old be able to safely concieve with no physical changes. No i doubt it. So if a girl entered puberty at say age 6 then yeah a 10 year old could probably give safe birth.
The safety factor is about giving birth, not conceiving. A girl entering puberty at age 6 is still not going to have a physical body capable of safely giving birth at 10. Puberty is related to the ability to conceive, not the physical preparedness to give birth.
You're argument appears to be like this: women were property, therefore men tries to kill young girls as quickly as possible. That's just ridiculous. Why would ancient peoples think this way indeed? Clearly any rational person would want to use their properties in a way that gives maximum benefit. You conceded the odds of survival were "super low", so why would anyone risk almost certain death for a very slim chance at 1 baby, when they could get say 5 babies out of the same "property" by waiting a while?But again why would ancient peoples think this way? She also COULD have survived without it odds were just super low.
You truly believe what you imagined I was saying instead of what I actually wrote, it seems. I have no illusions about the brutality of the human race. I just understand that this callousness is borne out of a desire for profit, and not for the sake of inflicting death and suffering for next to no reason. And yes, there are many child rapists. Doesn't mean people didn't care because it "helped the population" as you stated.Oh and i don't troll not on purpose anyway i truly believe semaphore is being naive about human history let alone the prevalence of those who would even rape a prepubescent. Though i also respect his/her intelligence for obvious reasons.
Why? Can you provide any evidence whatsoever to support this assertion? The 5 year old mother that came up a lot in this thread had puberty at 8 months old. It was still obviously not even remotely safe for her to give birth.As for the relative bit i meant that the earlier one enters puberty the earlier it completes and thus the earlier a safe birth will occur.