In 1850 the life expectancy was 40. I looked it up. Our ancestors didn't have time to be kids at 16. Life expectancy now is 77.7 years. Comparing her with 16 year olds from our history is misleading.
Not really a relevant comparison. Most of that increase is at birth and in the first five years of life; LOTS more infant mortality back then.
Get past five years old, and life expectancies between the current period and a century back even out a lot. That IS a statistic.
So the comparison between her and sixteen year olds a century back is less misleading that you might think.
“Our ancestors didn’t have time to be kids at 16. Life expectancy now is 77.7 years. Comparing her with 16 year olds from our history is misleading.”
Following that logic, then we shouldn’t expect our children to behave as responsibly as a 16 year old from that era, until age 30. The better way to see longer life span, is not as a reason to extend childhood, but that if will become that capable at 16, how much more life you can get out of 77 years.
“Comparing her with 16 year olds from our history is misleading.”
Perhaps you might not want to bet the ranch on that premise.
Both physical and sexual maturation are partially a function of nutrition and general health. That means both physical and sexual maturation are, if anything, more likely to occur earlier now than under the conditions of a century ago.
Another observation, females mature at least two years earlier than males.
She just had the bad luck to catch the wrong wave at the wrong time/place.
Google “freak waves” and you may find it easier to understand what happened. Both the parents and the daughter made reasoned, informed decisions which were properly theirs to make.
“Theirs”, not ours. And most emphatically, not “Da Gooberments”.