Owen Lovejoy.
Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
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?
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
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 ...
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16015
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
And...HOW do they keep getting elected!!!!!I want to know how all the smaller brained species are still around!
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
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?
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?
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16015
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
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.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
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!
http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dkjordan/resourc ... Birth.html
Again, I am no expert. I have no personal experience.
I was just an intrested observer!
-
Rokcet Scientist
Mother Nature/evolution has an ingenious designkbs2244 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?
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.
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..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.
-
Leona Conner
- Posts: 476
- Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:40 am
- Location: Tennessee
[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.
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.
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!
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!
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt