"Natural is always better"

[Endus]

Because squeezing a baby head with a diameter of 11 cm out through an opening that is 12x12,5x13 cm in your pelvis which used to house your colon among other things but now solely is your expanded vajayjay sounds like something that would hurt.

It's the difference between pushing the baby out through a previously-existing orifice that is designed to allow something that size to pass through, or cutting a new hole.

A C-section is always going to be more damaging.

That doesn't mean it's bad, necessarily, but it isn't the "easier" option. Don't confuse anaesthetic for it being somehow less painful than giving birth naturally.

[Cracked]

It's the difference between pushing the baby out through a previously-existing orifice that is designed to allow something that size to pass through, or cutting a new hole.

A C-section is always going to be more damaging.

That doesn't mean it's bad, necessarily, but it isn't the "easier" option. Don't confuse anaesthetic for it being somehow less painful than giving birth naturally.

But realise that our regular pelvis is not "designed" to withstand such huge object. The human head size even at birth has increased substantially in a time much shorter it would take our pelvises to adjust.

[Payday]

But realise that our regular pelvis is not "designed" to withstand such huge object. The human head size even at birth has increased substantially in a time much shorter it would take our pelvises to adjust.

How substantial?

[jmb83]

I have one opinion for all the natural folks, you aren't allowed to have chemo, surgery, or any other medical aide outside of what naturally occurs in nature. After all, wouldn't it be unnatural to undergo such treatments?

[Underverse]

Natural is always better. More strictly defining what it means to be natural can be accomplished via technology. In the case of c-section, normal births are better by a longshot. The flora you obtain by passing through the vagina is invaluable.

That being said, c-sections have their place. If there are complications, technology should be used to define the natural process.

[Palmz]

How substantial?

Babies are much larger now than they were even one hundred years ago. 2 pounds give or take.

[Tirivaria]

But realise that our regular pelvis is not "designed" to withstand such huge object. The human head size even at birth has increased substantially in a time much shorter it would take our pelvises to adjust.

Which says uncomfortable things about humans evolutionarily. Without C-sections, "large head" and "smaller pelvic opening" would be a combination of traits adversely selected against. Babies and their mothers would be dieing and those traits wouldn't last in our gene pool.

[The Stormbringer]

Natural Birth >>> C Section.

Don't understand why that's stupid?

And if a natural birth could have serious complications and kill the mother or child where a C section would be safer? What then? Still better?

[Cracked]

How substantial?

Ok, I bullshit you a little for the sake of simplicity. Our pelvis did widen, but not nearly to match the previous ratio.

http://www.karencarr.com/larger.php?CID=498

To the left: chimpanzee pelvis to head, to the right: human pelvis to head. As you can tell, chimpanzee labour is no big deal. But human pelvis is at a stretching point. It's widely believed now that it stopped widening due to being "just about the right size", since the pregnancy wouldn't be able to last much longer due to mother energy crysis. But that's not to say it should be this tight.

[Endus]

But realise that our regular pelvis is not "designed" to withstand such huge object. The human head size even at birth has increased substantially in a time much shorter it would take our pelvises to adjust.

Bollocks. The human pelvis is able to handle it just fine, and it hasn't changed that significantly from our hominid ancestors. While we obviously have larger brains, our jaws are significantly smaller, relative to our size.

Besides which, up until the past century, it's a problem that would've totally resolved itself because any woman whose pelvis wasn't able to pass a child would die in childbirth, most likely along with the infant, meaning those genes wouldn't get passed on.

We've been giving birth naturally to infants just fine for 200,000 years. It's not a mechanical issue. Are there occasional problems, like breach births and the like? Sure. But those affect most mammals.

[lopk]

And if a natural birth could have serious complications and kill the mother or child where a C section would be safer? What then? Still better?

Using an extreme case in order to make your point is generally not a good idea. If a mother is in danger and a C section would be safer, than obviously a C section should be preformed. Otherwise, the guy you quoted was mostly correct: natural birth is better.

[Zantos]

The reason they say natural food is better is because usually most food you get from the store is altered. They are altered to last longer, and have more vitamins and such. A side effect of this is it usually tends to be unhealthy, taste a bit worse then organically grown(had this proven myself from beef), and can even have negative side effects. That is why people say naturally grown food is better, because usually it is.

[Underverse]

Which says uncomfortable things about humans evolutionarily. Without C-sections, "large head" and "smaller pelvic opening" would be a combination of traits adversely selected against. Babies and their mothers would be dieing and those traits wouldn't last in our gene pool.

It's more likely that the modifications being made are epigenetic, and not genetic. I'll assume that it's true that babies are 2lbs more now than a few hundred years ago, as Palmz says. This is certainly not evolutionary. Large populations do not evolve in such a directed way in such a short period of time, especially when selective forces are so varied across the world.

[pocky_rin]

In that graphic picture someone linked of childbirth, whats the thing that looks like testicles?

Also I read somewhere before that in our evolution we sacrificed the natural ease of mammal childbirth in favor of walking upright, and our pelvis's haven't quite changed yet to help us. This is why people often give birth on all fours or squatting, instead of the traditional more "aesthetic" position you see on TV of the woman lying on her back. If someone could shed light as to whether this is bullcrap or not it'd be cool.

[Endus]

Ok, I bullshit you a little for the sake of simplicity. Our pelvis did widen, but not nearly to match the previous ratio.

http://www.karencarr.com/larger.php?CID=498

To the left: chimpanzee pelvis to head, to the right: human pelvis to head. As you can tell, chimpanzee labour is no big deal. But human pelvis is at a stretching point. It's widely believed now that it stopped widening due to being "just about the right size", since the pregnancy wouldn't be able to last much longer due to mother energy crysis. But that's not to say it should be this tight.

If that image were accurate, we couldn't give birth. Since we do, it isn't. Reasons would be because it's a three dimensional passage, not two dimensional, and most births don't pass through the way she's drawn it. Also, the infant's skull isn't solid.

Chimps might have an easier time, but that doesn't mean there's something "wrong" with human physiology. We're adapted just fine to our lifestyle. The reason you see differences there is because humans are not chimpanzees. Heck, chimps aren't even hominids. Most of the difference you see there boils down to the fact that we walk upright.

Also, that human beings are generally protective and supportive of each other in a tribal grouping, whereas standard chimpanzees are brutal psychopaths and a mother chimp has to be ready to flee with her infant right after birth to keep other chimps from eating it.


Edit: Pelvic shapes of modern humans, chimps, and australopithecus africanus, one of the oldest hominid species we know of;



There's a reason australopithecus' feet and pelvis look a lot more like a modern human's than a chimp's do. Because a chimp isn't a hominid, and this is one of the main reasons why.

[Cracked]

Bollocks. The human pelvis is able to handle it just fine, and it hasn't changed that significantly from our hominid ancestors. While we obviously have larger brains, our jaws are significantly smaller, relative to our size.

Besides which, up until the past century, it's a problem that would've totally resolved itself because any woman whose pelvis wasn't able to pass a child would die in childbirth, most likely along with the infant, meaning those genes wouldn't get passed on.

We've been giving birth naturally to infants just fine for 200,000 years. It's not a mechanical issue. Are there occasional problems, like breach births and the like? Sure. But those affect most mammals.

So you believe 30-50% infant mortality rates are delivering "just fine"? Those figures are most common estimates of medieval infant mortality, but even then, the medical care was better than it was say 5000 years ago.

[Underverse]

So you believe 30-50% infant mortality rates are delivering "just fine"? Those figures are most common estimates of medieval infant mortality, but even then, the medical care was better than it was say 5000 years ago.

Medieval mortality rates had more to do with disease and poor nutrition. Humans did not spread to every continent on earth before agriculture with a 50% infant mortality rate.

[Elegiac]

So you believe 30-50% infant mortality rates are delivering "just fine"? Those figures are most common estimates of medieval infant mortality, but even then, the medical care was better than it was say 5000 years ago.

You are aware that most infant mortality, in developing countries, is due to low birth weight and malnutrition - both of which would have been exceedingly abundant in medieval times.

[Endus]

So you believe 30-50% infant mortality rates are delivering "just fine"? Those figures are most common estimates of medieval infant mortality, but even then, the medical care was better than it was say 5000 years ago.

It wasn't 30-50% at birth, dude. It was that high by age 5 or 10.. It had to do more with the preponderance of diseases that children are least-equipped to fight off, poor nutrition, and a few issues like breach births or the child being choked by the umbilical that we can, with modern technology, cope with today. Those latter issues exist in all mammals. They aren't unique to human physiology. And yes, veterinary techniques have reduced that significantly for domestic animals, for the same reasons.

[Tirivaria]

It's more likely that the modifications being made are epigenetic, and not genetic. I'll assume that it's true that babies are 2lbs more now than a few hundred years ago, as Palmz says. This is certainly not evolutionary. Large populations do not evolve in such a directed way in such a short period of time, especially when selective forces are so varied across the world.

It wasn't my intention to imply there was any directed change. Rather the opposite. There are constantly new gene sequences popping up due to random mutation. Mostly they don't mean much. Even when they result in a new trait, it doesn't mean anything in an evolutionary sense in the absence of environmental stress. It's only when there is an environmental stress that competition and "survival of the fittest" matters and we might see a shift in what is "average" one way or the other.

C-sections allow births that would otherwise not be viable. It allows certain traits to continue to be passed down when otherwise they would not. This doesn't mean those traits are preferred or will become more common in the population. They just are when otherwise they would not.