Anonymous 1 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 1:25 pm https://www.mothering.com/articles/wome ... ive-birth/
It is pure evolution in action: when we do not use certain functions of our physiology, the “message” to our always-changing body-mind system — a message that becomes passed down to future generations through changes in DNA expression — is, “That function is no longer needed.” What function are we talking about? All of them that are associated with natural birth, and a woman’s body going into labor on her own.
Women Are Losing the Capacity to Give Birth
- Sassy762
- Princess
- Posts: 18488
- Joined: Tue May 22, 2018 2:30 am
Thank you for posting the links. I am willing to read up on something, as long as the source isn’t wacky, and mothering.com is wacky.SolidlyAverage wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 6:56 pmWe aren’t positive what exactly is nature vs nurture, and I won’t cite mothering.com. But you are dismissing valid research without considering it. I didn’t read the story, and these sources aren’t related. But they discuss the idea of epigenetics and the impact that stress can have on future generations who did not experience the stressors.MysticDreamer wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 5:38 pm Mothering.com = biased horse shit. Produce a no biased source, and I might actually click the link.
Life experience as far as bad nutrition and such that affects us physically is pretty much the only thing passed on via dna. Anything else is hocuspocus. My hating my father and such is not passed on in my dna. However, his blue eyes might.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2019 ... pigenetics
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transge ... nheritance
(Yeah, I know it’s Wikipedia. But it contains an easy to read description of the idea and tons of valid references)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5977074/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytime ... s.amp.html
-an article providing an argument against these claims
The jury is still out. For obvious reasons, controlled experiments can never ethically be done in humans to determine if certain traumas or stresses can impact future generations. But there is plenty we don’t know about genetics, enough that it would be premature to completely dismiss the idea as nonsense. Gene expression certainly can be altered without changing the DNA sequence itself because it’s all more complicated than “this sequence means you will have blue eyes” and “this sequence means you will get breast cancer.” AndSome of those changes are hereditary. We can sequence an individual’s genome, but we can’t make certain predictions based on that because there are many more factors at play than just amino acids lining up a certain way. Some of that is nature, some of that is epigenetics.
Have you ever looked at studies of identical twins raised separately? They’re an interesting way to study epigenetics. Your hatred of your father may be more genetic than you think it is, actually.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3063335/
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/maga ... portraits/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_study
- Baconqueen13
- Princess Royal
- Posts: 6811
- Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 12:10 am
- Location: In Sanity
I'll slow it down for you, the use of pitocin has NO bearing on whether or not your great great grandkids will have a decrease in natural oxytocin production and any decrease will be negligible and it's cause will be generally unknown. After all, according to you any change in stress level or deviation from anything will cause changes to your genome, so there is no way to definitively determine if your great great grandchild's inability to produce oxytocin is a result of you inducing labor 150 years prior, or her high school boyfriend dumping her on prom night.Anonymous 1 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 5:17 pmTalking to you is like talking to a 6 year old who keeps calling you an idiot for saying someday letters will show up in his math problems.Baconqueen13 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 5:06 pmThat still deals with the psychological and NOT the genetic. The release or lack of release of endorphins have no bearing on the genetic traits that the child will or will not exhibit. So you still are the stupid one here.Anonymous 1 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 5:01 pm
That’s true. The article mentions it as a way to describe what oxytocin does. The Dr being discussed is talking about oxytocin’s role in labor, and whether or not that role is being diminished due to the overuse of pitocin.
I’ll slow it down for you - this means that the overuse of pitocin may be leading to a decrease in natural oxytocin production over generational lines during labor.
Oxytocin affects both psychological and physical functions. That ONE sentence in the article was describing why oxytocin is important, it was not summing up the theory that is being discussed.
Ok thanks. I’ll mark that down as your completely uneducated opinion based on your lack of understanding what is going on when it comes to this post.Baconqueen13 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 8:56 pmI'll slow it down for you, the use of pitocin has NO bearing on whether or not your great great grandkids will have a decrease in natural oxytocin production and any decrease will be negligible and it's cause will be generally unknown. After all, according to you any change in stress level or deviation from anything will cause changes to your genome, so there is no way to definitively determine if your great great grandchild's inability to produce oxytocin is a result of you inducing labor 150 years prior, or her high school boyfriend dumping her on prom night.Anonymous 1 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 5:17 pmTalking to you is like talking to a 6 year old who keeps calling you an idiot for saying someday letters will show up in his math problems.Baconqueen13 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 5:06 pm
That still deals with the psychological and NOT the genetic. The release or lack of release of endorphins have no bearing on the genetic traits that the child will or will not exhibit. So you still are the stupid one here.
I’ll slow it down for you - this means that the overuse of pitocin may be leading to a decrease in natural oxytocin production over generational lines during labor.
Oxytocin affects both psychological and physical functions. That ONE sentence in the article was describing why oxytocin is important, it was not summing up the theory that is being discussed.
- Baconqueen13
- Princess Royal
- Posts: 6811
- Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 12:10 am
- Location: In Sanity
What is there to understand? You're a crackpot spouting crap said by other crackpots that are skewing scientific theories and taking them out of context to suit your crackpot views. You are aware that the Doctor who said vaccines cause autism lied and skewed his own research in order to support his crackpot theory and he lost his license over it. Yeah, you're on par with people supporting that guy and believing him AFTER he admitted his lies.Anonymous 1 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 9:10 pmOk thanks. I’ll mark that down as your completely uneducated opinion based on your lack of understanding what is going on when it comes to this post.Baconqueen13 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 8:56 pmI'll slow it down for you, the use of pitocin has NO bearing on whether or not your great great grandkids will have a decrease in natural oxytocin production and any decrease will be negligible and it's cause will be generally unknown. After all, according to you any change in stress level or deviation from anything will cause changes to your genome, so there is no way to definitively determine if your great great grandchild's inability to produce oxytocin is a result of you inducing labor 150 years prior, or her high school boyfriend dumping her on prom night.Anonymous 1 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 5:17 pm
Talking to you is like talking to a 6 year old who keeps calling you an idiot for saying someday letters will show up in his math problems.
I’ll slow it down for you - this means that the overuse of pitocin may be leading to a decrease in natural oxytocin production over generational lines during labor.
Oxytocin affects both psychological and physical functions. That ONE sentence in the article was describing why oxytocin is important, it was not summing up the theory that is being discussed.
**pats head**Baconqueen13 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 9:24 pmWhat is there to understand? You're a crackpot spouting crap said by other crackpots that are skewing scientific theories and taking them out of context to suit your crackpot views. You are aware that the Doctor who said vaccines cause autism lied and skewed his own research in order to support his crackpot theory and he lost his license over it. Yeah, you're on par with people supporting that guy and believing him AFTER he admitted his lies.Anonymous 1 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 9:10 pmOk thanks. I’ll mark that down as your completely uneducated opinion based on your lack of understanding what is going on when it comes to this post.Baconqueen13 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 8:56 pm
I'll slow it down for you, the use of pitocin has NO bearing on whether or not your great great grandkids will have a decrease in natural oxytocin production and any decrease will be negligible and it's cause will be generally unknown. After all, according to you any change in stress level or deviation from anything will cause changes to your genome, so there is no way to definitively determine if your great great grandchild's inability to produce oxytocin is a result of you inducing labor 150 years prior, or her high school boyfriend dumping her on prom night.
-
- Princess
- Posts: 20108
- Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 5:32 pm
The article lost ME at mothering.com. It’s a completely biased source that rejects everything that’s not “natural” when it comes to pregnancy, birth and parenting.
עמ׳ ישראל חי
- agander2017
- Monkey's Mama
-
Princess Royal
- Posts: 5958
- Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 11:11 am
- Location: Lost in my own mind. Enter at your own risk.
- HaggardWitch
- Countess
- Posts: 410
- Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 2:50 pm
Evolution is super, super slow. This article is nonsense.
-
- Donated
-
Regent
- Posts: 2820
- Joined: Thu May 24, 2018 2:38 pm
Well, I don't have a medical degree so I have no idea if the production of oxytocin during labour affects the newborn or not. Since there haven't been any studies done, as far as I know, to see if women who were born naturally have less issues going into labour on their own than whose who were born via planned c-section or through induction it's all just theory.
I do agree with the article that we need to stop using pitocin to speed up labour, though. I know when I was pregnant the doctors in the city I lived in routinely induced women at 5-7 days overdue. There were no nonstress tests done to see if it was necessary, they just did it. If they thought your baby was going to be over 9 lbs they scheduled a c-section and didn't even make it an option to try and deliver naturally unless you fought them. I was friends with a woman who had children'a aid investigation opened on her because she refused to allow the doctor to induce her 7 days after her due date and delivered a healthy 7 lb baby 12 days after her due date.
Wih my second they wanted to start pitocin 8 hours into labour because they felt I wasn't progressing fast enough. Telling them with my first I went from 0-5 and stalled for hours and then went from 5-10 in an hour meant nothing to them and I was told if I didn't take the pitocin they would do a c-section once I hit 12 hours of labour. I took a shot and refused the pitocin. Low and behold 2 hours later she was born.
I know in cats and dogs if the labouring mother feels threatened or unsafe her body will halt labour until she can find a safer place to deliver the rest of the litter. Since we're mammals I'm guessing our body has the same type of defense. Maybe women are having more trouble producing oxytocin as fast as medical professionals want us to because we feel unsafe in the clinical surroundings of a hospital that threatens interventions if we don't stick to their time frames. It would be interesting to see a study on low risk mothers studying the progression of labour in hospital and in home with a midwife and see if there is a difference in the need for intervention and the progression of labour between the two locations. I'm going to hyothesize that those women delivering at home progress much more fluidly and receive less intervention than those in hospital.
I do agree with the article that we need to stop using pitocin to speed up labour, though. I know when I was pregnant the doctors in the city I lived in routinely induced women at 5-7 days overdue. There were no nonstress tests done to see if it was necessary, they just did it. If they thought your baby was going to be over 9 lbs they scheduled a c-section and didn't even make it an option to try and deliver naturally unless you fought them. I was friends with a woman who had children'a aid investigation opened on her because she refused to allow the doctor to induce her 7 days after her due date and delivered a healthy 7 lb baby 12 days after her due date.
Wih my second they wanted to start pitocin 8 hours into labour because they felt I wasn't progressing fast enough. Telling them with my first I went from 0-5 and stalled for hours and then went from 5-10 in an hour meant nothing to them and I was told if I didn't take the pitocin they would do a c-section once I hit 12 hours of labour. I took a shot and refused the pitocin. Low and behold 2 hours later she was born.
I know in cats and dogs if the labouring mother feels threatened or unsafe her body will halt labour until she can find a safer place to deliver the rest of the litter. Since we're mammals I'm guessing our body has the same type of defense. Maybe women are having more trouble producing oxytocin as fast as medical professionals want us to because we feel unsafe in the clinical surroundings of a hospital that threatens interventions if we don't stick to their time frames. It would be interesting to see a study on low risk mothers studying the progression of labour in hospital and in home with a midwife and see if there is a difference in the need for intervention and the progression of labour between the two locations. I'm going to hyothesize that those women delivering at home progress much more fluidly and receive less intervention than those in hospital.