It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

German woman gives birth to GIANT baby.

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Girl weighing 13.47 lbs. is Germany’s largest-ever baby.


A baby born Friday in Germany is the country's largest-ever, at 13.47 pounds and 22.6 inches long.

Thats one big kid. Holy moly. The kid's so big, she wont even fit in one pic frame, you have to slide it to the right...


Look at that nurse's face. That says it all.

Not to be out done, in March, a British mother gave birth to a 15 lb., 7 oz. baby boy named George. Dang!

One might think it has to do with the GMOs, growth hormones and highly processed food. Generally speaking it probably does.

But the biggest baby on record was born to Anna Bates of Canada in 1879. The 7'5" mother and her 7'11" husband welcomed a 23 lb. 12 oz. baby boy.

Soon, women are just going to start giving birth to full grown kids.

I can see it now, its a boy, he lands on his feet, looks up and says 'sup?




posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Ouch!!!!!!!

These cases give new meaning to the "Ring of Fire" at delivery.


edit: she did give birth naturally, I just read it. Well, hope she had an epideral.
edit on 30-7-2013 by eternity4us because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   


One might think it has to do with the GMOs, growth hormones and highly processed food. Generally speaking it probably does.

But the biggest baby on record was born to Anna Bates of Canada in 1879. The 7'5" mother and her 7'11" husband welcomed a 23 lb. 12 oz. baby boy.


I love these two contradictory sentences. On one hand we are to believe GMOs must be responsible for big baby birth weight, yet on the other hand I guess we must assume people went back in time to feed a mother GMO food for her 23lb baby in 1879.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Pffft If my mom is to be believed that was how my birth was...
edit on 30-7-2013 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Breast feeding will kill mama in a week. Loaded diapers will be considered biological weapons.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Gotta love babies!

Welcome to the world little lady.....hope life treats you kind.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


HOLY CRAP! That baby is huge! Is the mother still alive?



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


Just wait till he's a toddler, he will run all that excess weight off and be thin as a rail and a cute little booger



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Welcome to this crazy world kiddo, wish you well and good luck (lots of it).

In the meantime could be interesting to investigate that if their father was on active military duty during Iraq or had something to do with D.U.munitions.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho



One might think it has to do with the GMOs, growth hormones and highly processed food. Generally speaking it probably does.

But the biggest baby on record was born to Anna Bates of Canada in 1879. The 7'5" mother and her 7'11" husband welcomed a 23 lb. 12 oz. baby boy.


I love these two contradictory sentences. On one hand we are to believe GMOs must be responsible for big baby birth weight, yet on the other hand I guess we must assume people went back in time to feed a mother GMO food for her 23lb baby in 1879.


Well, I understood the point being made. The largest baby on record was the spawn of two giant people, both well over 7 feet tall. This baby, while smaller than that one, is still huge, and has "regular" sized parents. Meaning, the ratio of the parent's size to the baby's size is larger with this new baby.

I'm not saying I agree that's true. I don't think it has anything to do with GMOs or anything other than random mutations, but the comparison made sense to me.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 





I'm not saying I agree that's true. I don't think it has anything to do with GMOs or anything other than random mutations, but the comparison made sense to me.


I 'get' the comparison, and the following isn't directed at you.

If this abnormal sized baby were the result of GMO etc. wouldn't it be normal? Wouldn't this be happening all the time? Not sure if OP was joking or serious though.

I actually like OP so I'll assume joking.

Oh and really quick... I have been lazy and haven't put photshop on the new computer. Can someone shoop the baby so it looks like the 'Brain Bug' from Starship Troopers where Neil Patrick Harris is touching it and say's it's afraid?
edit on 30-7-2013 by Domo1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


The qualifiers "generally speaking" and "probably" avoids any "contradiction".

Carry on.



edit on 30-7-2013 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join