Archaeologica.org

Ours is about forty something as well Beag, it certainly opens the way to a larger brained species if this becomes the normal method. The question seems to be, how many children would die or be damaged if Caesarean birth was not available?

Regarding brain size and evolutionary advances, I seem to recall from a recent cable program that brain size isn't as important as brain structure. Seems like one of the main differences between us and our more apelike ancestors is the development of a certain structure in the frontal region of our brain that facilitates planning ...

I can live with that May. Every time I hear people say that a large brain is a survival factor I want to know how all the smaller brained species are still around!

I want to know how all the smaller brained species are still around!

And...HOW do they keep getting elected!!!!!

Even after being a participant in my wife’s 5 births, and having 4 grandchildren, the latest two by “c-sect” (The first emergency, the second due to the “once c-sect always c-sect” opinion), I still do not consider myself conversational with the process.
But doesn’t the current female pelvis actuality split apart to some extent during birth? It is a temporary thing, lasting at the most hours, but like the skull of the baby being in parts so it can deform to make the passage easier, it happens and then heals.
It is kind of an on purpose and designed bone breakage.
(Of course, now we are going to get into a “designed by who” argument. Please, spare me!”)
Are there any OB’s out there?

I'd never heard that, kb. The female pelvis is naturally wider than the male. That's one of the main means of determining if a skeleton is male or female.

I think this is what I was refering to.

http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dkjordan/resourc ... Birth.html

Again, I am no expert. I have no personal experience.
I was just an intrested observer!

kbs2244 wrote:Even after being a participant in my wife’s 5 births, and having 4 grandchildren, the latest two by “c-sect” (The first emergency, the second due to the “once c-sect always c-sect” opinion), I still do not consider myself conversational with the process.
But doesn’t the current female pelvis actuality split apart to some extent during birth? It is a temporary thing, lasting at the most hours, but like the skull of the baby being in parts so it can deform to make the passage easier, it happens and then heals.
It is kind of an on purpose and designed bone breakage.
(Of course, now we are going to get into a “designed by who” argument. Please, spare me!”)
Are there any OB’s out there?

Mother Nature/evolution has an ingenious design solution for that 'problem', kb: the fontanelles. The skull is in parts, loosely apart during birth, therefore movable in relation to eachother, quickly fusing after birth. Most fontanelles close in the first 24 to 48 hours. The top one can take a few weeks. You can feel it on a baby's head. Be careful! The brain matter is directly underneath with only soft skin as cover!



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fontanelle

Yeah, but that is only half of it. The half we can all see and feel.
But go to my above post, and you can see the other half in the temporary pelvic modification that takes place right before birth. Since it starts to heal right after birth, and is not bone, it would not show up in any burried bones, even if the woman died in chidbirth. All the evidence would just rot away.

kbs2244 wrote:Yeah, but that is only half of it. The half we can all see and feel.
But go to my above post, and you can see the other half in the temporary pelvic modification that takes place right before birth. Since it starts to heal right after birth, and is not bone, it would not show up in any burried bones, even if the woman died in chidbirth. All the evidence would just rot away.

I'm not sure that is entirely true. I think you can tell from looking at a women's skeleton whether she's had children - possibly even how many she's had. Something about abrasions or roughening on a point or points on the pelvis adjacent to the birth canal..

That's correct May.

[quote="Mayonaze"][quote="kbs2244"]Yeah, but that is only half of it. The half we can all see and feel.
But go to my above post, and you can see the other half in the temporary pelvic modification that takes place right before birth. Since it starts to heal right after birth, and is not bone, it would not show up in any burried bones, even if the woman died in chidbirth. All the evidence would just rot away.[/quote]

I'm not sure that is entirely true. I think you can tell from looking at a women's skeleton whether she's had children - possibly even how many she's had. Something about abrasions or roughening on a point or points on the pelvis adjacent to the birth canal..[/quote]

TIME FOR A WOMAN'S OPINION. You men are something else. Yes, you can tell by a woman's pelvic bones if she has had children and how many. It was shown on a program about the Medicis, seems we lose a bit of bone with each delivery. Back when I had my three, 30 some odd years ago, if the baby weighed in at 7 pounds, it was considered good size. Now if you give birth to a 7 pounder, it is considered "low birth weight" so doctors are making women have larger babies because they think it's good. We aren't made to push out that much of anything, so we end up having c-sections. My oldest daught had twin boys, both over 7 pounds and she couldn't handle natural childbirth so she had a section. Believe me, any woman who choses to have her belly cut open in order to avoid the pain of childbirth should have her head examined. This is a procedure that should only be performed when absolutely necessary. Doctors today do it more for convenience than anything else. If any of you know of a man who had to pass a kidney stone he would have a pretty good idea of what childbirth is like.

You men can now return to your research.

Interesting.
But would all this be true on a multi thousand pelvis?
And isn't it a uniquely human trait?

That is: a multi thousand year old pelvis.

The passing of a kidney stone is said to be the greatest pain next to childbirth. Sam Pepys undewent surgery, no anesthetic, to be freed of the pain of the stone.
I can't comment on either Leona, I have had surgery without anesthetic but as amputees knew, if it doesn't last too long you can handle it.
Neither applies in the case of stones or child birth.
Doctors over here are complaining that women see C sections as the easy option, most of these doctors seem to be male and would do their cause more good if they kept their mouths shut and leave women to make up their own minds.
The same as when male judges pontificate on rape, they make me cringe!