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?

It's not necessarily s problem.but c sections come with risks, including risks to future pregnancies. Your rissks of placenta previa and placenta acretia are increased after c section which is risky for mum.and baby. If you only want one/two children of but repeated c sections carry increased risk. But again not a problem as long as women are armed with the information to make an informed choice.

It's not all about size, position of baby makes a difference as well. My huge headed (off the chart head circumference) baby came out easily in under an hour,no pushing. My smaller babies took longer and were harder to push out and last one ended in emcs. I wonder if the fall I had towards end of pregnancy did that though tbh, I landed on my hip instinct meant I threw myself to side rather than land on bump and my pelvis was excruciating from then onwards. They thought about X ray to see if I had broken it. Baby just didn't put descend and put pressure on cervix to open etc. And even now 8mths later I am still having physio as my pelvis keeps dropping out of alignment.

I'm surprised that they haven't gone on about IVF being against evolution or somethjng.

genetically speaking, a man could carry the gene on his x chromosome so the mother isn't always the one passing it on. So it's bollocks there would be evolution through this as men could pass it on to the next generation anyway. Which is why it didn't disappear before c sections were available. The science behind this argument is thus flawed, because women aren't the only carriers.

The science behind this argument is thus flawed, because women aren't the only carriers.

You may want to explain that better.

Lots of decisions push the bounds of natural selection. For example women might go through the menopause later in life as more women leave childbearing until they are settled in a career with a nice house. We also affect evolution/ natural selection by having mixed race marriages. Incidentally the children of mixed race marriages are often stronger, healthier and mire intelligent due to a diverse gene pool.

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3146070/Mixed-race-relationships-making-taller-smarter-Children-born-genetically-diverse-parents-intelligent-ancestors.html

There are so many factors that affect evolution it's hard to predict what will happen in the future.