To find the BBC article on research on c sections and evolution a bit off?

[bummymummy77]

_t.co/jrKmhdvCwy
_
I find it a bit off. Yes it's science and cold hard fact but for some reason the tone got to me a bit.

And this is coming from someone who had a home birth and is very anti unnecessary interventions.

I can imagine it making women who've had c sections feeling like shite.

Seemed to me a little like the way it was worded is added to the quiet drip drip of c section stigma.

I mean, we've evolved past having enough body hair to survive in caves and eat raw meat, we treat cancer and intervene medically to save 1000's of lives daily.

At the same time I find it interesting and obviously most research will benefit mankind in some way.

What are other's views on it?

I thought we evolved over thousands of years, not one generation

Oh and my teeth aren't itching and piss isn't boiling before I get my ass handed to me. Just wondered what others thought.

There is that too!

I thought the 'scientific research' was a bit thin.

I heard it this morning and thought it was 'Damn you women not dying during childbirth' however I'm probably bias as I did have an emergency c section and both ds and I would have died without it.

I agree with you OP. I was shocked and can absolutely see that it is of zero worth aside from making people feel like crap!

And I had 2 completely drug free water births, so it doesn't directly affect me!

Yeah surely you'd need sizeable chunks of the population to descend from a long line of women who'd had C-sections before you could draw any conclusions. I mean, I had one but my mum didn't and my son won't so not sure how we fit in.

The tone of the BBC Breakfast reporting made it sound like all these too-posh-to-push mums were being very selfish by not dying in childbirth like they were meant to. Probably had careers and all sorts, the hussies.

It only relates to one specific medical condition. It's a condition that means it's hard for baby to get put and if left to nature both baby and mother would die. C sections are given to avoid this. It's genetic therefore more babies are born with the condition who would otherwise have died therefore there is an increase in people with that condition, because they are not dying in birth.
I don't think the article is a "bit off" or written in an unpleasant tone it's just reporting research. Why would it make me feel like shite? You are the only one suggesting that c sections should make a person feel shite,why, I have no idea, my twins would likely not be here without a section, why would I feel shite that I had one? Bizarre.
Yes I have had a c section. I see nothing wrong with the research or the article.

Think you are trying to start an argument so YABU 😉💩

Antibiotics could be classed as anti-evolution. All those people that have been saved that would otherwise have died!

Seeline - I'm not sure you understand the point of the research. If the children would have died, perhaps killing the mothers too, then the genes wouldn't be passed on. Medical intervention is not evolution. Dog breeds are enormously differentiated and this happened very quickly. Not because of evolution but because of human intervention.

How is the research thin Conference?

"The researchers devised a mathematical model using data from the World Health Organization and other large birth studies."

For what it's worth, I had 2 c sections and was delighted to have them. I see them as a marvel of modern medicine. My children have fairly normal heads although I do have a great big arse...

I'd have thought it would be quite a slow process. To have an impact it would have to presumably be a female child born who inherits her pelvis size from her mother - which isn't a given is it? Or a son, who passes on his mother's pelvis size to his daughter so the grandchild is born by a caesarean.

Presumably a narrow pelvis isn't a dominant trait.

Anyway I know literally nothing about science. I thought the tone was alright but I know what you mean. As you say there is so much medical intervention on so many things.

Very reductive, while they might hypothesise that some of the trend is due to babies it genes for narrow hips surviving, there are many other factors, also, c sections are safer these days than they used to be, so more likely to be used in lower risk situations (e.g. A vaginal twin birth might be more risky than a modern c section, but less risky than a 60's c section, so you'd have a c today but not in the past).

Pistachio, it's relates to one specific medical condition only, not everyone having a c section. Fetopelvic disproportion is the condition. Nothing to do with being too posh to push or having a career.

We do evolve quickly in some ways.

For example I remember reading an article that says they can date skulls based on whether the teeth have an overbite or not due to the introduction of cutlery.

Only a few hundred or so years ago most people would have eaten with their hands, tearing meat off the bone with their teeth, but since the introduction of cutlery we no longer have a need for this attribute so it has faded away.

I totally get what you are saying and agree that the article could have been better worded, but our whole genetic make up is all a product of situations like this - eg we are here because our ancestors had a better immune system than those that died from things like plague.

I think it has some truth in it. After all, only less than a hundred years ago, mums and babies going through difficulties during childbirth would have/might probably have died, unless a forceps delivery was successful. Today emcs and elcs are both common place, unlike all those years ago when there was no such medical intervention. There's sure to be a direct correlation between the population surge and c section, along with other medical interventions.

It's fact and not meant to make anyone feel bad about their respective childbirth/s.

I thought just the same op. Bloody selfish women not dying in childbirth! What a bloody waste of research money.

Next let's count how many more selfish arses survive a burst appendix

Just to add I know my example is not a great one (re the teeth) as it's also a product of environment as well as genetics!

I wanted others thoughts on it. Of course I don't want to start an argument about childbirth. Only a dick would do that.

Moulds you're honestly saying you never noticed the stigma or shaming that can surround c sections? If so then you're lucky. I know of lots of women that feel shite for having a c section, some of them have gone on to try for vbacs and have since admitted it was due the the snobbery surrounding 'natural' births. Maybe it's just the area I'm in.

I thought it was really interesting. It's not too often you get to see evolution in action (so to speak) in humans.

Basically it made me feel uncomfortable and I didn't even have a c section. I know some of my friends that have would have been pretty upset if they'd read this.

no such safe procedure as modern medicine provides us with today I meant add

I had an emergency section (& planned to have three more but it didn't work out like that) and don't give a shit what other people/this report says.

Ultimately, without medical intervention I'd have died. Hooray for progress

I did too coffee. Just something about the way it was worded maybe put me off. I've broken out in spots and having hot flushes today so maybe my hormones are running a little wild.

Curse these wretched women who don't want to die in childbirth and who give birth to (pulls full sneer) daughters. Total drain on the human race.

Hooray for modern medicine