nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Smaller Babies.

kneemos

Do you think babies are too big for women's bodies? It's a hell of a chore to carry these things never mind childbirth.
It must be an evolutionary fuk up surly given the ease other animals have in giving birth.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

the_monkey

My wife is small and our 1st son was 4.7 KG, massive, he evened out as he grew up, now she is pregnant with 002 (and last) and has 2 months left and her bump is huge, we were convinced it was twins.... but no just another massive kid, we reckon this one will hit 5 KG.

C sections btw ...

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

kneemos wrote: »

The size of a woman's belly at nine months looks totally out of proportion to the rest of her.
You don't see other animals with such massively distended tummies.

You don't half come out with stuff at times. You are joking right? Ever see a heavily pregnant horse or cow? Come on!

And Belly??? My grandmother used to say only animals have bellies.

Wibbs

Eugene Norman wrote: »

and part of the solution to that is humans are born prematurely relative to other animals.

Yeah a newborn human is still pretty much gestating when compared to other mammals. We're more akin to marsupials minus the pouch.

Some animals can walk after a day or so.

More like minutes in some cases.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

It's good evolutionary "design" because the surviving big brained humans were evolutionary fitter than other humans and animals.

Exactly, enough survived to make us the dominant animal on the planet and our big brains and skulls have actually reduced in size over the last 100,000 years. Our cousins the Neandertals had even larger skulls. Dunno how wide their pelvis was though, or how their newborns compared to ours. They seemed to have had a tragic level of infant mortality though.

Akrasia wrote:

Bullsh1t

Maybe. Price did make some very valid points about diet, especially for the times he was living in. The mothers diet might influence childbirth, not with regard to the size of her or her pelvis, but the size of the infant. IE maybe on some traditional diets the growing infant gets good levels of nutrition, while staying at a relatively low weight at birth? I dunno, just thinking out loud here.

PandaPoo

I'm due in 3 weeks. I look ridiculous , I waddle, I'm in constant pain, my baby is estimated at being 9 pounds already.

Anyone want to take over??

Menas

What a bizarre thread. Not sure of the point of it - to have a scientific discussion or to frighten any posters who may be pregnant and slightly nervous about giving birth?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

the_monkey wrote: »

My wife is small and our 1st son was 4.7 KG, massive, he evened out as he grew up, now she is pregnant with 002 (and last) and has 2 months left and her bump is huge, we were convinced it was twins.... but no just another massive kid, we reckon this one will hit 5 KG.

C sections btw ...

Two of my kids were 4.6 and 4.9 kg. Both were delivered naturally following a very short labour. I've seen bigger babies. A friend had a boy of 5.8kg.

Eugene Norman

Oakley Bumpy Rabies wrote: »

You don't half come out with stuff at times. You are joking right? Ever see a heavily pregnant horse or cow? Come on!

And Belly??? My grandmother used to say only animals have bellies.

Thing is I haven't. Do heavily pregnant cows actually get very distended? Do sheep? Does the average guy driving around in spring report home that he's seen heavily pregnant sheep on the mountain?

Might be obvious to farmers but I can't say I've noticed.

kneemos

Oakley Bumpy Rabies wrote: »

You don't half come out with stuff at times. You are joking right? Ever see a heavily pregnant horse or cow? Come on!

And Belly??? My grandmother used to say only animals have bellies.

The difference with the horse or cow is the foal or calf will be up running around almost immediately.

What do you call the bit between your chest and pelvis.

ceadaoin.

kneemos wrote: »

As I said it's a poor evolutionary design.
Large undeveloped babies that will kill large numbers of women without medical assistance.

I don't think large numbers of women would die without medical assistance. The majority of births are straightforward vaginal deliveries and studies have shown that home births are just as safe as hospital births for low risk pregnancies. Medical intervention isn't needed that often.

kylith

Wibbs wrote: »

Yeah a newborn human is still pretty much gestating when compared to other mammals. We're more akin to marsupials minus the pouch.More like minutes in some cases.

We're also quite advanced at birth compared to some other animals; puppies and kittens are born blind and deaf. Many rodents are hairless, blind, and deaf. We're, I suppose, underdeveloped for animals that don't use dens for birthing, though one could say that we are denning animals as we have sheltered in caves and, later, constructed houses for ourselves, which other primates do not.

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe. Price did make some very valid points about diet, especially for the times he was living in. The mothers diet might influence childbirth, not with regard to the size of her or her pelvis, but the size of the infant. IE maybe on some traditional diets the growing infant gets good levels of nutrition, while staying at a relatively low weight at birth? I dunno, just thinking out loud here.

It's also possible that our difficulties are caused by good nutrition leading to higher birth weights whereas the non-westerners studied could have had lower birth weights due to malnutrition.

the_monkey

Oakley Bumpy Rabies wrote: »

Two of my kids were 4.6 and 4.9 kg. Both were delivered naturally following a very short labour. I've seen bigger babies. A friend had a boy of 5.8kg.

:eek:

Eugene Norman

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I don't think large numbers of women would die without medical assistance. The majority of births are straightforward vaginal deliveries and studies have shown that home births are just as safe as hospital births for low risk pregnancies. Medical intervention isn't needed that often.

It's just as safe for low risk deliveries because science works out before the birth what's low risk and what's high risk, and the easier births are kept at home. It's still stupid though.

The death rate ( of mothers) used to be about 10 per thousand births which is significant if you think women would be getting pregnant a lot.

Day Lewin

! read once that the baby's brain is growing at its fastest on the first day after birth!

Several points need to be made:

1. Mammals that gestate just one offspring tend to have larger ones, obviously. Consider a bitch having eight puppies - each pup is one-eighth the size of a theoretical singleton.
So, human babies, elephant calves, whale calves, even bovine calves - proportionately larger babies.

2. Because we walk upright, our pelvis has a different shape - basically to stop the contents falling out! It is narrower at the base - makes for a tighter passage. [no vulgar quips, please]

3. The human USP is the big brain: our babies can't walk or run at birth, or hunt food efficiently - the moment of their birth is a subtle, and dubious, compromise between staying INSIDE the mother till the last possible for maturing that brain, and making a last-minute exit to the outside world when the foetal skull has grown to the maximum possible size to still fit through - just.

It IS a very tight fit, no mistake about that. Amazing that it usually works - good midwifery and good health make a critical contribution, though. And we shouldn't give birth lying down, as if we had a horizontal pelvis like most mammals: we should do it upright so that gravity assists with that designed-by-evolution pelvic diameter.

Greenmachine

Peregrinus has said it best. Vs other animal and how close a new born is to supporting themselves a newborn is effectively half term. It is however a trade off of the the higher ordered brain. We do not face the same immediate treats of predators as lower order animals etc, if we did we would have died out long ago, as we would have been incredibly vulnerable considering the mother would have to constantly nest with the young.

Akrasia

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe. Price did make some very valid points about diet, especially for the times he was living in. The mothers diet might influence childbirth, not with regard to the size of her or her pelvis, but the size of the infant. IE maybe on some traditional diets the growing infant gets good levels of nutrition, while staying at a relatively low weight at birth? I dunno, just thinking out loud here.

Childbirth has been dangerous and painful since pre biblical times, Native americans and aboriginal peoples had very high levels of maternal mortality even when they were still living on their traditional hunter gatherer diets...

Yes our diet affects our size but to say that child birth was safe and that babies were delivered with 'relative ease' before we started eating modern 'refined sugars' doesn't stand up to scrutiny

Akrasia

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I don't think large numbers of women would die without medical assistance. The majority of births are straightforward vaginal deliveries and studies have shown that home births are just as safe as hospital births for low risk pregnancies. Medical intervention isn't needed that often.

The risks of childbirth are amplified in cultures where there are multiple pregnancies

If you have a 5% chance of complications during pregnancy, and the average woman has 6 children, then you're going to have 1 in 4 women having a pregnancy with life threatening complications.

99% of maternal mortality occurs in the developing world where women don't have access to medical services to identify risky pregnancies and take emergency precautions if complications arise.

[Deleted User]

Has the op been looking at some work college who is 9 months pregnant and thinking how is she going to get that baby out!

A Pregnant women's bump can look enormous.

thegreatgonzo

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Thing is I haven't. Do heavily pregnant cows actually get very distended? Do sheep? Does the average guy driving around in spring report home that he's seen heavily pregnant sheep on the mountain?

Might be obvious to farmers but I can't say I've noticed.

Yes they do look distended at the later stage. Having 4 legs instead of 2 probably makes it look less obvious but when you are used to seeing them not pregnant you will notice.

With cows it is is extremely common that they need assistance at birth by the way.

kylith

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Thing is I haven't. Do heavily pregnant cows actually get very distended? Do sheep? Does the average guy driving around in spring report home that he's seen heavily pregnant sheep on the mountain?

Might be obvious to farmers but I can't say I've noticed.

http://orig09.deviantart.net/8b52/f/2008/185/4/3/jeff__s_cow__lena_by_neos429.jpg

Yes, cows get very distended in pregnancy.

thegreatgonzo

kylith wrote: »

http://orig09.deviantart.net/8b52/f/2008/185/4/3/jeff__s_cow__lena_by_neos429.jpg

Yes, cows get very distended in pregnancy.

Poor Daisy. I hope she's getting her pre-calver minerals:D

kneemos

kylith wrote: »

http://orig09.deviantart.net/8b52/f/2008/185/4/3/jeff__s_cow__lena_by_neos429.jpg

Yes, cows get very distended in pregnancy.

Is that a result of selective breeding?

kylith

kneemos wrote: »

Is that a result of selective breeding?

Selective breeding how?

I just did a google search for 'pregnant cow'.

kneemos

kylith wrote: »

Selective breeding how?

I just did a google search for 'pregnant cow'.

Breeds with bigger calves.

thegreatgonzo

From my experience of our own cows the ones that had the most distended bellies were ones that either had calves in an awkward position or twins. We have had some huge calves come out where the cow wasn't remarkably distended. Older cows will have slacker muscles too so after repeated pregnancies probably everything is going to be droopier

smash

thegreatgonzo wrote: »

Older cows will have slacker muscles too so after repeated pregnancies probably everything is going to be droopier

Remember ladies, do your pelvic floor exercises!

ziggy23

My son was 9 pounds when he was born. He just would not come out that end was 1cm dilated for nearly 24 hours and ended up having an emergency c section. I shudder to think what would have happened years ago without c sections

Akrasia

kneemos wrote: »

Breeds with bigger calves.

Most farmers prefer smaller calves because it results in easier deliveries, fewer lost calves and lower vet costs

Some farmers buy their bull sperm from sperm banks based on the bull's track record in producing small calves that grow into big cows.

smash

ziggy23 wrote: »

My son was 9 pounds when he was born. He just would not come out that end was 1cm dilated for nearly 24 hours and ended up having an emergency c section. I shudder to think what would have happened years ago without c sections

Probably something similar to what happened in Alien?

kylith

ziggy23 wrote: »

My son was 9 pounds when he was born. He just would not come out that end was 1cm dilated for nearly 24 hours and ended up having an emergency c section. I shudder to think what would have happened years ago without c sections

I was 10lbs (natural birth), but my uncle was 14lbs! A stone in weight. I suspect my grandmother was given an episiotomy for that; I know she ended her days bedridden.

steddyeddy

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

it the size of the skull that presents the problems, a smaller / less developed brain is the only around this which would mean stupider people

That and the fact we walk upright.