Are we messing with Evolution or Nature? Again.

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:28 AM
link   
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 Rh-positive.

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.

www.rhogam.com...


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.

anthro.palomar.edu...

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.

Peace.




posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:58 AM
link   
Though I know that this may be hard for some to swallow, IMO its an honest assertion to the question and an awaiting for the answers to questions that may have a meaning, non the less have not been discussed or identified in any or all communities.

This is something that while we wait for answers of things we DO not know, may be a beginning to those answers.

Peace.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by NoRegretsEver
 


All I know is that my sister was RHOneg and her baby had to have a total blood transfusion at birth.

Is this helpful?



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by NoRegretsEver
 


NoRegretsEver

It's very interesting to think that we have engineered Children to be born ' against the wishes of nature'..... That said, it could be argued that ALL of medical science, the discovery of penicillin , bacteria and infections, all new medical therapies etc etc are also bypassing mother nature...

I think that as humanity has evolved then it is inevitable that we would challenge nature and will do so until we have the power change it.... maybe we are already there...?

Regards

PurpleDOG UK



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by PurpleDog UK
 


Thank you PD, I was also referring to the fact that though the evolution of medicine seemed easier to recognize, Rh0- is not, and the fact that we can come up with a remedy for this and not things that have been here much longer is something to ponder.

Peace.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by catwhoknows
 


If you could give more information, then yes it would be helpful. This is something that has been over looked, but the reasons are still in question.

Peace.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 05:56 AM
link   
My question is, why would something so unexplained have a solution that is even less explained.

Peace.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoRegretsEver
reply to post by PurpleDog UK
 


d the fact that we can come up with a remedy for this and not things that have been here much longer is something to ponder.

Peace.


It's simply an easier problem to solve. Which do you think was solved first, 2+2 or the area of a circle? Both concepts probably originated around the same time, but 2+2 was intrinsically easier to solve.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   
It is a perplexing thought, I also have heard said about male fetuses being rejected, whose HY antigens cause the Mother's body to see it as something "foreign"; causing a higher rate of miscarriage on first-born males.

Here is something that I have always wondered about Nature and the way Nature can act on 'her' own accord.

Say for instance a child of a multiple birth (more than twins, more like 4 or more) caused by using Fertility Treatments, and this child grows up and meets another child of a multiple birth (similarly by way of Fertility Treatments). I have always imagined that the coupling of the two might bring about a more "natural" occurrence of a multiple birth (4 or more babies) because they would have a pretense for this occurring.

Now if this becomes a more naturally occurring event as a result of Man's Pharmaceutical Wonders at Fertility, then what will prevent Mother Nature from stepping up to the plate by providing those mothers with multiple teats, so they can support a large "litter".

Never fool with Mother Nature or else she might find a Solution! Lots of animals have 4 or more teats, I guess humans could just as easily.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Greensage
 


That's not exactly how evolution works.

For your theory to pan out, you would have to have a random mutation in the population that would cause a woman to have more "teats" (and such a mutation would take millenia, not a few generations), and then you would have to have these women gradually produce more offspring than other woman.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by Greensage
 


That's not exactly how evolution works.

For your theory to pan out, you would have to have a random mutation in the population that would cause a woman to have more "teats" (and such a mutation would take millenia, not a few generations), and then you would have to have these women gradually produce more offspring than other woman.


Nature knows when there is an imbalance, it also knows how to create spontaneously. I am not talking evolution here but more like adaptation. Obviously there is a "trigger", the Fertility Treatments. No amount of testing can determine how Nature will deal with the effects. To me, this is the classic case of a niche which can be filled by Nature.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Greensage
 


Adaptation isn't a uniform population shift (this is evolution). It is a single individual's response to an environmental stressor, which fertility treatment would not qualify as. Such treatment doesn't alter the genetics of the fetus, which means such stressors cannot have forward effects.

It is impossible for a woman already born to spontaneously develop new mammary tissue, and in order for a yet-to-be-born woman to develop such tissue, she or her mother would have to be exposed to an environmental stressor strong enough to cause entire gene duplications, which we haven't seen in a few hundred thousand years.

As it stands, milk production isn't a problem for women who have had multiple births, as the female body has an incredible ability to accomodate. Additionally, we have formula to supplement.

While I assume you were making the "extra teats" comment as a bit of a tongue-in-cheek joke, it is not a scientific reality.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


I am only opening a door to a possibility. However, you might be surprised to find that multiple teats are more frequent than you know (in Humans).

Now, since the occurrence of multiple teats is a common in Nature for those animals who support large litters, and the occurrence of more than one set of teats in humans is actually real and true, then this door I speak of is more probable than you wish to accept.

I really cannot believe that drugs (such as in Fertility Treatments) could not alter genetics. That is probably a bit short-sighted at best. Anyone knows that drug use can alter your chromosomes.

Also, I never said that a fully formed human would spontaneously develop a new set of teats, I was talking about the offspring.

Sorry!

[edit on 8/24/2010 by Greensage]



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   
interesting question. I read something like,it's weird to let a baby be born that wouldn't even be possible to be conceived in nature, or else let it survive when it would otherwise die.

I believe that it's an interesting question, because there are a lot of people living today that would not have been here without medical care. Lots of people that would have died from all sorts of things...

It would be a way to reduce population numbers, not providing care, where nature would not allow you to live,

It's a topic that can get very heated. Because in my opinion, the simple procedure that made it possible to have a child, still only lets one live. The child isn't different from others.So isn't the mother. I 'would go to a doc too, if I need to get fixed.
What would make any other fix, less bad/good.

Isn't it weird to stay alive, where it wouldn't be possible in nature ? Is it wrong to use our abilities to change the world, or should we be restricted from it ?

Is it wrong or right to use our knowledge, to create a world where we are letting people live that would not have lived without it. Or is it part of natural development, to become able to cheat nature ?

Without our natural talents it would not be possible. Is it a crime to use something that you are meant to use. Are there boundaries in nature that say you are not allowed to use intelligence if it conflicts with nature ?



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
My wife was RH - and got that shot .My sons girl friend is RH - and is preggers and also got that shot.
Having RH- blood doesnot meen you cant get preggers nore does it meen if you get preggers the baby or mom will die . Many mother who are RH- never know they are and the kids are just fine.
Rh- blood only meens your chances of complacations are higher and with moderen shots even that chance can be reduced .
PS also even Befor the shot you were required to get blood test for marrage to reduce the chances of a rh+ and rh- person trying to have a kid .
Ovesly there are rh- men as well as rh- women and when thouse two have kids no shot is needed .
So we are NOT by passing nature we are just giveing nature a hand to Reduce potinal problems .
As can be said with asprian





top topics
 
2

log in

join