Now I know that there has been discussions concerning Rh0- blood types and I have seen them come and go, usually due to the implications of some sort
of "special" abilities, which can upset some.
That's not what this is about. This is about Rh0- and pregnancy.
Rh0- (negative) and pregnancy.
What Does It Mean to Be Rh-Negative?
Being Rh-negative means you don't have a certain protein ("D antigen" or the Rh factor) on the surface of your red blood cells. If you do
have it, you're Rh-positive. So the terms “Rh-negative” and “Rh-positive” are really just terms that further define what type of blood a
person has, beyond the general blood type categories of A, B, AB, and O.
Being Rh-negative is neither good nor bad, but it can become a serious issue if you’re pregnant by or planning to have a child with a man who is
In the United States, the population of Rh-negative individuals varies among ethnic groups. The highest prevalence is found among Caucasians (15%),
followed by African Americans and Hispanics (8% each), and Asians and Native Americans (1% each). For the small percentage of people who are
Rh-negative, their blood type causes no special health concerns except when they give or receive blood, or during pregnancy.
Clinically, the Rh factor, like ABO factors, can lead to serious medical complications. The greatest problem with the Rh group is not so much
incompatibilities following transfusions (though they can occur) as those between a mother and her developing fetus. Mother-fetus incompatibility
occurs when the mother is Rh- (dd) and the father is Rh+ (DD or Dd). Maternal antibodies can cross the placenta and destroy fetal red blood cells.
The risk increases with each pregnancy. Europeans are the most likely to have this problem--13% of their newborn babies are at risk. Actually only
about ½ of these babies (6% of all European births) have complications. With preventive treatment, this number can be cut down even further. Less
than 1% of those treated have trouble. However, Rh blood type incompatibility is still the leading cause of potentially fatal blood related problems
of the newborn. In the United States, 1 out of 1000 babies are born with this condition.
Though there is speculation on how long this blood type has been around, there are definitely some questions that surround it. But what we do know is
that it was discovered about 40 some years ago, and since then, even though there is NO WAY it can be duplicated, and there is no definite answer to
where it came from, we have found a way to allow woman to have children, even though at a time, most or even all women would have had difficulties in
having a child other than their blood type before Rhogam was introduced.
If this is the case, is there some way that we may be (again) messing with the way things were meant to be, by NOT allowing nature to take its course?
By taking something, that for one reason or another was not allowing women to have a child (An Rh0- woman) to not have a child without the same blood
type, to now flourish, without the question asked, how come it was that way in the first place?
Could science have found away to allow something that they have NOT had a chance to explain, be covered up, by allowing what nature would not? Why is
it that there hasn't been a study of children that were born after the mother receiving Rhogam? Wouldn't people want to know? There are those that
have hatred, and discontent with those with the blood type, but how come no one has asked about their off spring?
I am in no way asking this because its fearful, as I am Rh0- and have had rhogam with my children, but my concern is that there may be a cover up
about our off spring, and what they may or may not have due to being born to a mother that if 100 years ago, they would never had been born. I have
been researching this for some time now, and have of course heard the same things, whether outlandish or not, but I would like to hear the thoughts of
others on this subject.
Thank you for your time.