Welcome to Gaia! ::

Demyan The Devil's avatar

7,350 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Tycoon 200
Say a small woman with particularly narrow hips is expecting a baby. She goes into labour, but needs a caesarean because her narrow pelvis will not allow the baby's head to pass through the vaginal canal. The female child inherits her small stature, and it is very likely she will need to same assistance if she chooses to bear children.

Would you say that there is a chance medical intervention could affect this negatively? More and more women require medical assistance when bearing offspring these days. If we persisted enough, do you think we could eventually end up producing a generation of women who would not be able to bear children naturally?
Slutty_Eddie's avatar

Newbie Noob

Demyan The Devil
If we persisted enough, do you think we could eventually end up producing a generation of women who would not be able to bear children naturally?
Possibly.

There is so much that goes into producing a healthy baby that, such as correct prenatal care, (which, might I add, is sorely lacking the the US), that the evolutionary pressures from vaginal birth verses cesarean birth are probably very minimal, and possibly evolutionarily negligible.
Gardening_with_Rave_Music's avatar

Versatile Shapeshifter

10,900 Points
  • Big Tipper 100
  • Millionaire 200
  • Senpai's Notice 100
Ive thought of many things pertaining to this. I think not all women itd occur to though because there is always going to be women with wider hips lol. And if the babies are smaller then technically they should also come out easier. The problem would be if the shorty married a tall guy lol.
Saoszuc's avatar

Original Gaian

8,700 Points
  • Pie For All! 300
  • Tycoon 200
  • Alchemy Level 3 100
If a child is too large to fit through a woman's pelvis, it's not the woman's fault for having a small pelvis. Women do not make babies too large for them to birth. Now, a circumstance might arise which leads to a problem - for example, weeks-long prodromal labor due to unnecessary medical intervention - but blaming the woman is ridiculous.
Gopher dude's avatar

Questionable Lover

We could just start genetically engineering women to lay eggs.

Pluses:

Babies will develop outside of the womb.
Eggs are easier to "pass".
Periods will be less messy as Women would just lay unfertalized eggs.
Abortion would be easier.

Cons:

Abortion would be easier.
"Normal" people might be grossed out by eggs.
Slutty_Eddie
Demyan The Devil
If we persisted enough, do you think we could eventually end up producing a generation of women who would not be able to bear children naturally?
Possibly.

There is so much that goes into producing a healthy baby that, such as correct prenatal care, (which, might I add, is sorely lacking the the US), that the evolutionary pressures from vaginal birth verses cesarean birth are probably very minimal, and possibly evolutionarily negligible.


Not to mention a larger baby could be indicative of larger offspring. But yet again evolutionary negligible.
Demyan The Devil's avatar

7,350 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Tycoon 200
Saoszuc
If a child is too large to fit through a woman's pelvis, it's not the woman's fault for having a small pelvis. Women do not make babies too large for them to birth. Now, a circumstance might arise which leads to a problem - for example, weeks-long prodromal labor due to unnecessary medical intervention - but blaming the woman is ridiculous.


WTF? I never said women were to blame. Genetics are more to blame.

DXnobodyX
Slutty_Eddie
Demyan The Devil
If we persisted enough, do you think we could eventually end up producing a generation of women who would not be able to bear children naturally?
Possibly.

There is so much that goes into producing a healthy baby that, such as correct prenatal care, (which, might I add, is sorely lacking the the US), that the evolutionary pressures from vaginal birth verses cesarean birth are probably very minimal, and possibly evolutionarily negligible.


Not to mention a larger baby could be indicative of larger offspring. But yet again evolutionary negligible.


Our species struggles to give birth because of our large heads and small pelvises. To make it easier, women would either have to sacrifice their ability to walk (not advantageous in the days when we were vulnerable to predators) or babies would have to be born even smaller, and by mammalian standards they're already premature and vulnerable enough as they are now.

Perhaps pouches are the way to go.
Saoszuc's avatar

Original Gaian

8,700 Points
  • Pie For All! 300
  • Tycoon 200
  • Alchemy Level 3 100
Demyan The Devil
WTF? I never said women were to blame. Genetics are more to blame.


No, medical practices are more to blame. The idea that some women are just too small to give birth vaginally is an unfounded, bullshit meme meant to reinforce stereotypes. You may not specifically "blame women", in the sense that somehow the woman made a decision which resulted in her being "too small", but your language places the burden of the problem on women. You may as well blame the offspring for being too big.
Demyan The Devil's avatar

7,350 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Tycoon 200
Evolution is not perfect, and whether you like it or not humans ARE flawed in some departments.

Here's some sources:

Human Birth and Bipedalism

Evolution of Human Birth

The pain in child birth is caused by two conflicting evolutionary needs. Bipedalism requires that the legs be close enough together so that the person can walk without a waddle. But this causes the pelvic opening to be small. Intelligence requires large brains and thus large cranial sizes. These two conflicting features lead to the tight fit of the infant through the birth canal.

Sexual Diamorphism of The Pelvic Architecture

Sexual dimorphism of the human pelvis is linked intimately with its adaptive functions. The peculiarly shaped hominid pelvis represents the total response to the diverse forces that have moulded its structure. These diverse forces are requirements for efficient bipedalism and parturition. In some respects, the structural demands of these unrelated functions have been in conflict.

The morphological response to the dominant requirement, bipedalism, is clearly discernible, while the changes serving the needs of parturition are seen as compensatory modifications as reflected with greater emphasis for pelvic sexual dimorphism in the female.
Saoszuc's avatar

Original Gaian

8,700 Points
  • Pie For All! 300
  • Tycoon 200
  • Alchemy Level 3 100
Cervical pressure is the cause of pain in childbirth (and crowning burn), not "the tight fit of the infant through the birth canal". rolleyes

Women. Do. Not. Make. Giant. Hip-Breaking. Babies. Not without something significant (and statistically tiny) happening, something which is not part of ordinary pregnancy / gestation, labor, et cetera.
Saoszuc
Cervical pressure is the cause of pain in childbirth (and crowning burn), not "the tight fit of the infant through the birth canal". rolleyes

Women. Do. Not. Make. Giant. Hip-Breaking. Babies. Not without something significant (and statistically tiny) happening, something which is not part of ordinary pregnancy / gestation, labor, et cetera.

When doctors were introduced the the birthing process, death by childbirth fell to almost nothing as did the Infant Mortality Rate.
Saoszuc's avatar

Original Gaian

8,700 Points
  • Pie For All! 300
  • Tycoon 200
  • Alchemy Level 3 100
The rose in spring
When doctors were introduced the the birthing process, death by childbirth fell to almost nothing as did the Infant Mortality Rate.


I know that you're a troll, but I'm going to humor you. smile

"The birthing process" - by which you mean the modern medical model's approach to labor, delivery, and neonatal care, I presume - is one hell of a mixed bag.

If you want to say that blood transfusions, antibiotics, and better surgery procedures lowered the rate of death in childbirth in emergency situations, then yes, this is true.

If you're also including reclined birth chairs with stirrups and restraints, fetal monitors, de rigeur epidurals, routine C-sections, unnecessary epsiotomies, induction of labor for doctor convenience, withholding of water during labor, et cetera, then you're talking about issues which cause more danger to and suffering for both mother and infant.

Let's not forget that morphine and scopolamine were used for "twilight sleep" anesthesia until the '70s, usually without bothering to gather prior consent. Before that? Chloroform and ether.

The infant mortality rate likewise was improved more by antibiotics than by forcing a woman to lie on her back, strapped down and hemorrhaging due to unnecessary practices intended to increase convenience for doctors and nurses.
Saoszuc
The rose in spring
When doctors were introduced the the birthing process, death by childbirth fell to almost nothing as did the Infant Mortality Rate.


I know that you're a troll, but I'm going to humor you. smile

"The birthing process" - by which you mean the modern medical model's approach to labor, delivery, and neonatal care, I presume - is one hell of a mixed bag.

If you want to say that blood transfusions, antibiotics, and better surgery procedures lowered the rate of death in childbirth in emergency situations, then yes, this is true.

If you're also including reclined birth chairs with stirrups and restraints, fetal monitors, de rigeur epidurals, routine C-sections, unnecessary epsiotomies, induction of labor for doctor convenience, withholding of water during labor, et cetera, then you're talking about issues which cause more danger to and suffering for both mother and infant.

Let's not forget that morphine and scopolamine were used for "twilight sleep" anesthesia until the '70s, usually without bothering to gather prior consent. Before that? Chloroform and ether.

The infant mortality rate likewise was improved more by antibiotics than by forcing a woman to lie on her back, strapped down and hemorrhaging due to unnecessary practices intended to increase convenience for doctors and nurses.

That's nice and all, but you contradicting what people who have 8 + years of medical experience say doesn't impress me. We don't have C-sections because it makes doctors look important. There are C-sections that are used to save the life of the mother or fetus. Seeing that the IMR and mother's death during childbirth have gone down compared to 3rd world countries with no medical help.
Saoszuc's avatar

Original Gaian

8,700 Points
  • Pie For All! 300
  • Tycoon 200
  • Alchemy Level 3 100
The rose in spring
That's nice and all, but you contradicting what people who have 8 + years of medical experience say doesn't impress me. We don't have C-sections because it makes doctors look important. There are C-sections that are used to save the life of the mother or fetus. Seeing that the IMR and mother's death during childbirth have gone down compared to 3rd world countries with no medical help.


Track it with overall health, which has also improved. It's not a result of birth torture; it's because of specific treatments like the ones I mentioned.

About a third of births in America are via C-section. The decline noted last year was the first decline in over a decade. Are you telling me that a third of women in labor require emergency, life-saving surgery? And are you ready to show where 30% of labors resulted in critical consequences to mother or child before the advent of routine C-sections?
Saoszuc
The rose in spring
That's nice and all, but you contradicting what people who have 8 + years of medical experience say doesn't impress me. We don't have C-sections because it makes doctors look important. There are C-sections that are used to save the life of the mother or fetus. Seeing that the IMR and mother's death during childbirth have gone down compared to 3rd world countries with no medical help.


Track it with overall health, which has also improved. It's not a result of birth torture; it's because of specific treatments like the ones I mentioned.

About a third of births in America are via C-section. The decline noted last year was the first decline in over a decade. Are you telling me that a third of women in labor require emergency, life-saving surgery? And are you ready to show where 30% of labors resulted in critical consequences to mother or child before the advent of routine C-sections?

The only reason to do a C-section is if there is a complication in the birthing process. Just be aware that there are other things. Obesity has climbed up as well as chemicals in our food. Poor health in the population can easily account for that.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games