Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

_Dnikeb t1_jdluw5e wrote

Also the genes that lead to the formation of the placenta are viral in origin. They were incorporated into our ancestors' genome after a viral infection.

391

TechnicalSymbiote t1_jdlxdnp wrote

What about other animals placenta? How far back of an ancestral origin are we talking about, the first mammal?

114

_Dnikeb t1_jdlxs4v wrote

Said viral infection took place in the common ancestor of all placental mammals (who lived much later than the common ancestor of all mammals, that's why not all mammals are placentals), so humans specifically inherited it through evolution

245

TechnicalSymbiote t1_jdly9vi wrote

That's some pretty cool information. Thanks, u/_Dnikeb

spelling your username backwards made me smile, too, so thank you for that as well :)

115

_Dnikeb t1_jdlystv wrote

You're the first to notice that!

80

CulturedClub t1_jdmmwyg wrote

Beckoned? Baconed? I don't get it....ahh, wait.

21

whhe11 t1_jdmqq7f wrote

A large portion of our DNA is endogenous retroviruses, and it increase from say fish-amphibiam-lizard/snake-bird/dinasour(probably)-mammal-placental mammal-primate-human. It helps reshuffle DNA and insceases errors and mutations, which requires the development of better DNA repair functions to survive and increases the speed with which new adaptations emerge. Which is why say an alligator or a bird is pretty close to it's relatively distant ancestry and we're pretty different then our relatively close ancestry, with adaptations such as increase salt intake and decreased water requirements compared to chimps and banobos, nerve activated water grip mode for our digits, more efficient sweating for heat reduction and our very high endurance and more efficient bipedal walking, jogging and running.

29

Mosenji t1_jdn19jg wrote

Nerve-activated water grip mode. I had no idea, how does this work?

9

Black_Moons t1_jdnke3i wrote

Dunno exactly, but for whatever reason your hands/feet getting pruney in water is not a physical reaction from water entering your skin, its something your nerves cause in response to detecting water.

People with nerve damage to hands/feet don't get pruney hands/feet.

Also why it doesn't happen to the skin anywhere else on your body.

12

Krilesh t1_jdmyu75 wrote

love the my mammal Human’s robust feature set

3

NotAnotherScientist t1_jdmyu32 wrote

Really cool information. Thanks for sharing!

For those curious, I looked up non-placental mammals and as I was expecting, it's marsupials and the duck-billed platypus among others. What surprised me to learn is that the anteater is also a non-placental, non-marsupial mammal. Now I want to read more on the anteater.

7

camwhat t1_jdmspuj wrote

I just want to do my own further research. Do you have a source? Thank you 😊

5

_Dnikeb t1_jdn2keh wrote

This article explains it very well.

Here's a shorter version of the story: some viruses exist as virions, ie. the virus itself is hidden within a little envelope of phospholipids. On the surface of this envelope, there is a protein called syncytin that can merge cell membranes (also made of phospholipids). Its role is to fuse the virion with the cell membrane so that the actual virus inside the virion can trojan horse itself into the cell and infect it. Infection consists of the virus releasing its DNA in the cell's cytoplasm, turning the whole thing into a virus factory. Sometimes, the virus' DNA gets fused together with the host cell's DNA. When that happens, that's what you'd call a retrovirus.

Now, At some point some 200 million years ago, for some freaky joke of nature, a virus entered a mammalian egg cell, transitioned into a retrovirus, that egg cell got fertilized, and the result was a mammal that could produce its own syncytin and thus have the ability to merge cell walls. That allowed for the evolution of a structure known as syncytiotrophoblast, which develops on the point of contact between the embryo and the womb and is basically created by many embryonic cells merging together into a single cavity. The whole point of this structure is to act as a buffer zone, allowing nutrient exchange between the mother and the embryo while at the same time preventing the mother's immune system from reaching the embryo and killing it. Thus the placenta was born.

27

spookyghosties t1_jdmu8sr wrote

It blew my mind when I discovered the mitochondria was once a different organism we just absorbed forever

39

ThaLegendaryCat t1_jdmwf9d wrote

probably one of the most evolutionarily sucessful organisms on the planet. Or atleast high on the list considering that its practically universal in large parts of the tree of life .

34

SerifGrey t1_jdmh25z wrote

Are you saying humans gave birth long ago in our past without a placenta? so how did the baby get the nutrients from the placenta passing through the umbilical cord? I’m confused.

5

Dragmire800 t1_jdmkdjf wrote

Not humans, humans always gave birth with a placenta. Millions of years ago, a mammal was infected with a virus that ended up resulting in a structure that became the placenta.

We can look at the non-placental mammals around to deduce how our non-placental ancestor would have spawned offspring. The obvious is egg laying, like almost every animal does today besides placental mammals. We see this in monotremes like the platypus. The other option is to do it like marsupials where offspring is born ridiculously underdeveloped, and spends its early life in a pouch drinking it’s mothers’ milk.

Live birth is observed in some non-mammals, like sharks. Those shark species sustain themselves by eating their siblings while still in the mother

83

SerifGrey t1_jdmun8q wrote

Sorry for my dumb question, I should of known it was none humans but I just didn’t think it through, thank you for the information, very interesting.

10

Carbon_McCoy t1_jdppuqe wrote

Unborn shark babies eating their unborn shark siblings just to stay alive long enough to be born is one of the most nature-metally things I've ever read.

3

2MegaWhats t1_jdprik1 wrote

Baby Shark is darker than the cartoon would lead you to believe

3

DeengisKhan t1_jdmkl4y wrote

No humans existed that were non placental, that evolutionary trait developed many species before us, we just still make use of that method of birth in our biology because it works well enough to have kept placental mammals in the game.

17

afox892 t1_jdm2xco wrote

On the subject of things that can go terribly wrong with pregnancy, look up molar pregnancies and acardiac twins.

With molar pregnancies, two sperm fertilize one egg, or one sperm fertilizes an egg that doesn't contain the genetic material that it's supposed to, and the incorrect chromosome count means that instead of conceiving something that turns into a normal placenta*, the woman conceives this large fluid sac-filled mass. It can grow through the muscle of the uterus and can potentially turn cancerous and metastasize to the lungs, brain, etc. It's also possible to have a fraternal twin situation where one twin is a normal fetus and the other is a cystic mass that generally ends up killing the fetus. This mass produces much more hCG (the hormone that turns a pregnancy test positive) than normal, can cause preeclampsia, and as time goes by without removal the woman will often start passing grape-like cysts from the vagina.

*In the type with the empty egg (known as a complete mole), no maternal DNA is present so it's basically the father's cells that are getting inside the woman, invading, and potentially even killing her. Really odd to think about. In the type where two sperm fertilize one egg, a fetus can form in addition to the abnormal cystic placenta, but it's typically nonviable.

As for acardiac twins, when a fertilized egg splits to form identical twins, depending on exactly when it splits they could end up sharing one placenta and/or amniotic sac. And when they share a placenta, sometimes the blood vessels don't form properly and the twins end up connected to each other. This can result in twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome, where one twin gets a disproportionate amount of the blood and ends up large and beet red while the other ends up tiny and anemic (and one or both may end up dying). In a more extreme case, they can end up with twin reversed arterial perfusion, where one twin (A) ends up supplying all of the blood to the other twin (B). Unfortunately for twin B, they're getting the deoxygenated blood that has already been used by A, so they don't get enough oxygen to develop correctly. They don't end up being able to develop a heart (hence acardiac twin), but some of them don't even develop a head, and just end up being a big mass of flesh with legs and a spine that just stops at the neck. Some of them end up being nothing more than a head with an umbilical cord coming out of the stump of the neck. Treatment involves going in and shutting off the blood supply (after which the now-dead acardiac twin stays in the uterus until birth), but if left untreated, twin B generally gets pretty large and ends up killing twin A because having to supply blood to two bodies causes the heart to fail.

Horrifying.

287

level27jennybro t1_jdmpjbb wrote

And politicians who don't understand this want womens options limited to the point they may have to suffer through an experience like this because 'life is sacred'.

I couldn't even imagine being in Texas and having acradiac twins with one being just a head and spinal cord, then having to argue to the law that an abortion is necessary in that case.

155

afox892 t1_jdmubet wrote

Or a fraternal twin situation where one twin is a normal, healthy, viable fetus and the other twin is a complete mole which turned cancerous (called a choriocarcinoma). This is a fast-growing, aggressive cancer that quickly spreads beyond the uterus, particularly to the lungs. The very first thing that needs to be done to treat it is to evacuate the contents of the uterus, and that means terminating the healthy fetus. And there are so many places in the US where that wouldn't happen. She'd just have to wonder if the growing mass would kill the fetus in time for her to get treatment and start chemotherapy, or if it would be too late. But as long as that fetus had a heartbeat, its life would be prioritized higher than hers.

82

bebe_bird t1_jdmzw5g wrote

This is how I know the pro-life debate is just gaslighting us - saying all life is sacred while blatantly ignoring any science that supports higher quality of life lacks a consistent logic. There's too much "grey space" that's not actually grey at all, but it's difficult to codify.

66

Airosokoto t1_jdnzqdr wrote

It's all about wanting control instead of morality. There of those who desire a simpler world view so they can feel as if their incontrol, and those that will use them to get power because of how easy it is to manipulate them.

13

Laney20 t1_jdooiyf wrote

It's the same with the anti-trans stuff. Kids aren't getting surgeries. The vast majority of "gender affirming care" for kids is therapy, puberty blockers, and hormones. All of these are reversible. And all the science says they improve the outcomes for the kids. Yet here we are...

7

DastardlyRidleylash t1_jdn0mls wrote

It's like George Carlin said; to pro-lifers it's a matter of if they're preborn, they're fine, but if they're preschool, they're fucked until they can be turned into soldiers. They're effectively just anti-woman, just masking it under a visage that seems more palatable.

20

uniqueUsername_1024 t1_jdoj9zc wrote

“Pro-lifers” only protect children before they’re born; then they don’t care if those kids get shot in school or starve on the street.

5

KeniLF t1_jdmcakn wrote

<insert gif of woman fainting on stairs>

I am TRAUMATIZED after reading this 💀

110

Xyrus2000 t1_jdo2nie wrote

Because our education system is...challenged when it comes to biological education, there are some pretty big gaps when it comes to people knowing how things in the body function.

For example, a fertilized human egg is not some gentle little thing growing peacefully within the uterus. A fertilized human egg is actually an incredibly voracious parasite that will attach itself to whatever it can and, like a vampire, will drain it of every last nutrient.

The uterus, contrary to popular myth, is there to protect the mother from its ravenous appetite. It acts as a firewall to prevent the egg from killing its host. Hence why when a fertilized egg goes awry (winds up anywhere outside the uterus) it's a serious and life-threatening situation. Women can wind up dying in horrible and incredibly painful ways when things go wrong. And now, thanks to the rising far-right "Christian" nationalists creating the Neo-Inquisition, all those lovely horrible ways to die are making a comeback.

50

delinquentsaviors t1_jdpgrck wrote

“Parasite” is a bit extreme. I agree with the other poster. I would almost think you find human reproduction abhorrent 🤨.

−2

Xyrus2000 t1_jdpmo33 wrote

How is it extreme? You may not like the term, but that's what it is.

It's not "freaky", or "abhorrent". It's just science.

10

michaelvsaucetookdmt t1_jdowf30 wrote

Well youre putting your own little slant on it by saying shit like “voracious parasite.” Literally every placental mammal works this way. People learn about this in school. I don’t want you telling middle schoolers in sex ed this shit just because you think its freaky any more than i want super christians to control sex ed.

−9

Xyrus2000 t1_jdp0kqr wrote

>Well youre putting your own little slant on it by saying shit like “voracious parasite.”

That's not a slant. That is what a fertilized egg is. Have you ever seen the end result of an untreated ectopic pregnancy?

>Literally every placental mammal works this way

Did I say anything different? Pregnancy is parasitic by nature in most mammals. The only thing that prevents a pregnancy from killing the mother is the uterus. The fertilized egg can implant and grow just about anywhere.

>People learn about this in school.

No, they really don't. They get a sugar-coated version, if they get any version at all. Hence the TIL post and the various other medical-related posts by others here describe what can go wrong and WHY we have medical procedures to deal with it.

Or rather, we did until the fanatical religious nut jobs started with their idiotic "life begins at conception" bullsh*t.

> I don’t want you telling middle schoolers in sex ed this shit just because you think its freaky

Freaky? How on Earth did you get that from what I or others have posted? These are medical facts. These are complications that can and do arise during pregnancies, and WHY they arise. These are why medical procedures to deal with them exist, and why they shouldn't be banned by far-right nut jobs.

Teenagers, especially teenage girls, should be educated on this because it can literally be life or death for them, especially if they live in a red state that can deny them treatment.

>any more than i want super christians to control sex ed

There wouldn't be sex education if "super christians" controlled sex education. They just got a principal fired because some kids saw Michelangelo's sculpture.

20

michaelvsaucetookdmt t1_jdpeouk wrote

Bro shut the fuck up lmao. You’re too high on your own supply to realize that you ARE biased.

Yes, the fertilized egg does whatever it can to grow and gain resources. Thats literally all life. You know what I call that? Efficient. A parasite is when ANOTHER SPECIES takes nutrients from its host. It is not a parasite. You’re putting your own little slant on it, using very charged language.

Pregnancy is NOT parasitic by nature. It is reproduction. The animal WANTS to give resources so that it can pass on its genetic information. That is not parasitism, which is an unwanted attack on the host.

I said you think its freaky because of the charged language you use when talking about standard biological facts.

“Voracious parasite” “vampire” “ravenous appetite”

You don’t think those carry any sort of negative connotation? You think you’re just speaking straight facts?

What i meant is i don’t want middle schoolers to hear those things specifically. Sure you said some factual things, but you don’t have to use phrases that carry such negative connotations. Thats far from how a scientist would describe these things.

Teenagers should understand how this works, but they should also not be told that a fertilized egg is a “vampiric parasite that has a ravenous appetite and will kill you if it gets the chance.” Sure, that is a possibility, but those cases are very rare and you don’t have to make it seem so scary.

You can explain that fertilized eggs/fetuses suck nutrients from their mother in the controlled environment that is the uterus. If they exist outside of that controlled environment, they can develop incorrectly and harm the mother. You see how the way i said it and the way you said it are very different?

−1

Xyrus2000 t1_jdpr8zl wrote

>Bro shut the fuck up lmao. You’re too high on your own supply to realize that you ARE biased.

Charged language? What exactly did I say that was incorrect? Have you ever seen what happens with something like an untreated ectopic pregnancy?

How would you describe an organism that will literally siphon every last resource from its host without regard for that host?

>A parasite is when ANOTHER SPECIES takes nutrients from its host.

If the egg somehow escapes the protection provided by the uterus, THEN it effectively becomes a parasite as it will feed, damage, and eventually kill the host.

>Pregnancy is NOT parasitic by nature. That is not parasitism, which is an unwanted attack on the host.

Pretty sure a fertilized egg outside of a uterus is an unwanted attack on the host.

>I said you think its freaky because of the charged language you use when talking about standard biological facts.
>
>“Voracious parasite” “vampire” “ravenous appetite”

How are those inaccurate descriptions? A fertilized egg outside of the uterus acts like a voracious parasite. It literally starts sucking the life out of the mother and will consume everything it can.

>You don’t think those carry any sort of negative connotation? You think you’re just speaking straight facts?

I'm sorry, but I thought we were discussing what happens when pregnancies go wrong. There really aren't a whole lot of positive things to say about ectopic or molar pregnancies. In fact, they're pretty f*cking terrible and you better hope no one you know and care about ever has to experience them, especially if they live in a red state.

You want "straight facts"? Okay. An ectopic pregnancy will put you through an unimaginable amount of pain and suffering and then kill you. Is that better?

>but you don’t have to use phrases that carry such negative connotations.

Would you prefer flowery prose?

>Thats far from how a scientist would describe these things.

Formal descriptions are reserved for scientific journals. When they talk to the general public, they use terms the general public will understand.

>Teenagers should understand how this works, but they should also not be told that a fertilized egg is a “vampiric parasite that has a ravenous appetite and will kill you if it gets the chance.”

That isn't what I said. This is what I said, with the context you chose to leave out:

For example, a fertilized human egg is not some gentle little thing growing peacefully within the uterus. A fertilized human egg is actually an incredibly voracious parasite that will attach itself to whatever it can and, like a vampire, will drain it of every last nutrient.

Hence why women have uteruses protecting them from the egg. With the vast majority of pregnancies, the fact that a fertilized human egg can kill is no more notable than the fact you can die in car crash tomorrow. But the context of the discussion is a TIL on pregnancies going wrong. Not everyone knows that a fertilized human egg is biologically lethal. Not everyone knows that the uterus is what protects the mother from that lethality.

>You can explain that fertilized eggs/fetuses suck nutrients from their mother in the controlled environment that is the uterus. If they exist outside of that controlled environment, they can develop incorrectly and harm the mother. You see how the way i said it and the way you said it are very different?

Yes, you sugarcoated a serious medical condition. One of many related to pregnancies. You also omitted that politicians at both state and national levels are either planning or have already implemented laws that will prevent women from receiving the treatment they would need to deal with these emergencies. That's a pretty big f*cking big omission to make in this country these days.

Either way, have fun waging war on adjectives you don't like.

4

Laney20 t1_jdoo7pc wrote

This is why reproductive health care is so important.

22

PurpleSignificant725 t1_jdmol7p wrote

Molar pregnancues are the grossest and saddest things. So sad

30

86mysoul t1_jdp0o40 wrote

Gross? That's pretty harsh to people who have experienced this. (Like me)

3

Readylamefire t1_jdntkn7 wrote

My sister was a mirror twin. They shared a placenta, and she developed reverse of her twin (they believe this happens after a very late split) and it came with a huge price. Her twin, the one that was developing with organs in the usual place, ended up with her blatter and organs outside her body. Initially they thought they lost both twins.

When she was born, my mom didn't get to see the aftermath of what happened to the other baby, she was unconscious. I don't think my dad did either. But my sister is alive, happy, and healthy despite a lot of struggles along the way.

16

zombiechewtoy t1_jdmwlgl wrote

Jesus Christ I'm glad I didn't know any of this ahead of my first ultrasounds

Edit: I also wonder if molar pregnancy is what happened to queen Mary.

11

slo0o0oth t1_jdn7igt wrote

I just gave birth a week ago and I’m SO glad I didn’t see this comment before then lol (still fucking traumatized tho…)

9

86mysoul t1_jdp0g26 wrote

I had a complete molar in November of last year. It was my first pregnancy and it was probably one of the most emotionally traumatic things I've ever been through. I'm still processing it. Stuff of nightmares. Wouldn't wish it on my worst enemies.

7

OneShotHelpful t1_jdnnwqu wrote

> In the type where two sperms fertilize one egg, a fetus can form in addition to the abnormal cystic placenta, but it's typically nonviable.

Typically??

4

luugburz t1_jdoqowf wrote

thanks for the reminder to take my birth control

4

DudeDudenson t1_jdo4wzk wrote

I've been learning horrifying shit in the internet since dial up so I'm okay reading all of this but maybe you should add a disclaimer at the beginning, this kind of stuff will literally traumatize people

3

complitstudent t1_jdoqw3j wrote

I looked up pictures of acardiac twins and god do I wish i didn’t 💀💀💀

1

WoolyLawnsChi t1_jdm0i38 wrote

again

Abortion is healthcare

150

ZZBC t1_jdmp765 wrote

Exactly. Ectopic pregnancies can be deadly.

48

JohnWickThickStick t1_jdmuft8 wrote

Its not an abortion to get rid of ectopic (completely not viable in any way) pregnancies. Mayo clinic and the vast majority of doctors agree. Thankfully only 1-2% of pregnancies end up that way; in an ideal world it obviously wouldnt.

You cant "abort" something that doesnt even have a chance to start. I have gone through two different ectopic pregnancies with my SO.

7

Sam-Gunn t1_jdmwt3p wrote

>You cant "abort" something that doesnt even have a chance to start.

Tell that to the legislators in certain states. They are uninformed about things like this and often do not distinguish between valid pregnancies and ones that are life threatening to the mother and would never result in a valid pregnancy. Or things like empty sac which often used medicine to expel it (which uses the combination of medications that are being challenged legally, including one case in Texas that is attempting to remove the FDA's ruling on one of them).

For instance:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/29/ohio-extreme-abortion-bill-reimplant-ectopic-pregnancy

34

Laney20 t1_jdop5lj wrote

Unfortunately, that's not how the laws see it. And even if they did, it can be difficult finding a doctor that will risk the chance of being prosecuted (even if they're found not guilty or the law is overturned in their case, it will still impact their life).

4

WoolyLawnsChi t1_jdo0cxe wrote

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

https://www.acog.org/advocacy/facts-are-important/understanding-ectopic-pregnancy

Bans on Abortion Threaten Treatment for Ectopic Pregnancy

Abortion bans threaten to impede ectopic pregnancy treatment. For example ...

  • Legislation that bans abortion care for those with an ectopic pregnancy or mandates how clinicians treat ectopic pregnancies does not reflect the clinical reality of ectopic pregnancy management and could result in delays or even denials of care.
  • Abortion bans—even those with exceptions for ectopic pregnancy—can generate confusion for patients and health care professionals and can result in delays to treatment. Health care professionals should never have to navigate vague legal or statutory language to determine whether the law allows them to exercise their professional judgment and provide evidence-based care.
  • Any application of an abortion ban that affects those in need of treatment for ectopic pregnancy is inappropriate and will certainly cost lives.
2

Mammoth-Mud-9609 t1_jdlwope wrote

Not only that, but most of the blastocyst, (ball of cells which becomes the foetus) about 160 out of the 200 cells form the placenta with only the remaining 40 cells developing into the foetus.

66

PurpleSignificant725 t1_jdmooo5 wrote

And those 40 cells differentiate into 3 subtypes prior to beginning their development. Gestation is wild

10

Former-Darkside t1_jdmtp9g wrote

I think it is important to mention it is a VERY BAD thing for a fetus to develop outside of the uterus.

65

[deleted] t1_jdmxvz6 wrote

[deleted]

−19

KayakerMel t1_jdnbdm3 wrote

The pregnant patient was extremely lucky to survive: >In this case it was obvious that the abdominal implantation was secondary to undiagnosed ruptured left tubal ectopic pregnancy.

The patient needed an emergency c-section and a blood transfusion.

>In our opinion, bleeding from placental implantation site is the most life-threatening complication during laparotomy.

Extremely lucky to have survived.

16

Due_Insurance8159 t1_jdlxx0b wrote

I know someone where the placenta attached itself around multiple organs. Took 6 hours surgery to deliver the baby. Natural labour would have been catastrophic.

55

JeTePlumerai t1_jdn4o5u wrote

It’s called placenta percreta. The risk to baby comes from the need to deliver prematurely. The risk to mom is >!bleeding out.!<

10

Esinthesun t1_jdm05vz wrote

Uuum need more info

1

Due_Insurance8159 t1_jdm27yv wrote

The placenta attached itself to the organs and the bowel rather than just the uterus and was getting its blood supply from them. As far as I understand it, if any of those attachments broke, i.e. with labour/delivery mass haemorrhaging would occur. Surgeons had to carefully separate (and cauterise or tie off in some way) each connection. Fortunately it was picked up by scans and could be carefully monitored. Described as the octopus tentacles enveloping the organs.

59

Esinthesun t1_jdm2tej wrote

And the baby is ok?

2

Due_Insurance8159 t1_jdm7fg9 wrote

Yes. Mum and baby fine. Thanks to early detection and the skills of the surgeons. Baby was prem as there had to be no chance of labour starting

50

wekoronshei t1_jdm4lsh wrote

I'm more worried about the person who had to carry it.

42

Due_Insurance8159 t1_jdm7oqv wrote

Luckily the early detection meant both were fine. But yes. Could have been catastrophic. Thank goodness scans are routinely used.

24

ElizabethHiems t1_jdmys9s wrote

Natural labour would never have been an issue. The baby wasn’t in the uterus so it wouldn’t grow, labour would never even start.

−19

Mama_Mush t1_jdotddj wrote

That is incorrect. The fetus would grow outside the uterus and labor would start but there would be no way for the baby to be born.

2

ElizabethHiems t1_jdq21hs wrote

How exactly would labour start? Did the oxytocin receptors form on the tiny uterus? Is the lower segment there? If a baby grows in your abdomen then you don’t deliver by caesarean and you won’t go into labour.

Source: 20+ years experience and actually looking after someone this happened to.

0

Mama_Mush t1_jdq3axm wrote

There is no tiny uterus if the fetus is formed outside of it. The hormones can kick in and cause contractions but the baby needs to be removed by c section, as you said.

0

ElizabethHiems t1_jdq5nhj wrote

Not by c-section. The full name for a c-section is lower segment caesarean section. That means performing a horizontal incision into the lower segment of the uterus to deliver the baby. That means there has to be a womb developed enough to have one.

If the baby is outside of the uterus then the birth will be surgical but it will not be a caesarean. Multiple specialist surgeons are required.

One of the most significant problems faced by the surgeons is that the womb is designed to have a placenta stuck on it. The rest of your body is not.

When the placenta comes away from the womb at birth, it creates a large area of trauma. The criss cross fibres of the uterus clamp down on the blood vessels cutting off their supply. It also decreases in size to about the height of your tummy button. Bodies are amazing.

But the rest of your body has no such mechanism so all the removal will cause trauma that has to be repaired.

Your womb normally weighs about 60g, but that increased to 1kg by term. If the baby has grown outside the womb, the womb still weighs 60g.

If you have two wombs and get pregnant in one of them, only one will grow. It has to have a baby in it to grow. If there is no baby in the uterus, labour will not start. There is no mechanism to tell the body it is time.

1

HisSilly t1_jdq9b3j wrote

I think you're arguing about abdominal pregnancy meaning labour would never happen, but the comment you're responding to is talking about a placenta that's extended past the uterus, the foetus was still in utero?

1

suvlub t1_jdmmae6 wrote

There is a weird evolutionary arms-race going on about the placenta. There are some genes that, via epigenic mechanisms, only activate when inherited from a parent of specific sex.

There are genes that activate when inherited from the father, and these genes make the placenta... bigger, stronger, more aggressive, more invasive, to make the baby big and strong, possibly at the expense of the mother and her future children (which may not be by the same father).

Then there are genes that activate when inherited from the mother, which do the opposite, and try to keep the placenta in check, to minimize the risk to the mother and keep the uterus in good condition for future children.

Obviously, you can't go too far in either direction. But over the span of evolution, the balance was shifting here and there, and the genes kept accumulating. Now we carry lot of useless baggage that cancels itself out in our genome.

39

DefiantResist757 t1_jdmmylb wrote

I learned the hard way that placetas actively work against the mother sometimes...

37

pixi88 t1_jdmytai wrote

Yeah, my bitch ass placenta gave me diabetes!

32

snowbirdnerd t1_jdn46y4 wrote

There are so many things that can go wrong and all these bills banning abortion ignore them. Some of the worse are defects that aren't dangerous to the mother but will absolutely kill the baby after it's born. Ectopia cordis is where the baby's heart develops outside the chest cavity, it doesn't cause problems in utero but is deadly once born. Only a few surgical specialists in the world can even try to treat it.

It is fucking monstrous to force a woman to carry a child to term knowing that it will die hourse if not minutes after birth.

20

shewy92 t1_jdo7osu wrote

> some fetuses actually develop outside the uterus attached to the intestines in the body cavity.

And in some states that mother wouldn't be able to get an abortion and would probably die.

In 2019 Ohio tried making it a law where ectopic pregnancy fetuses had to be reimplanted, a thing that medically isn't possible

16

[deleted] t1_jdmx8gz wrote

[deleted]

13

ChillWisdom t1_jdmz3dy wrote

>there are signals being sent to the mothers brain that are suppressing her immune system and allowing her body to accept the foreign body.

Just wanted to add that many miscarriages happen from this process not fully suppressing the immune system and the foreign "thing" in the body being booted out. For some women this happens repeatedly and they need to take medication so that their body doesn't reject, what is basically a parasite, from implanting in the uterus.

23

carbonmonoxide5 t1_jdoxkta wrote

Yeeeeeah…as someone with an autoimmune disorder, I 100% expect that to not work correctly on my person.

3

oldmankitty t1_jdneqru wrote

Currently pregnant, thanks for the nightmares

9

88kat t1_jdoxgi5 wrote

Currently pregnant too. I have gestational diabetes, with like no family history of any diabetes, and starting pregnancy at 5’8 and 135 pounds. My doctors assured me the diabetes is because my placenta is causing it. Which makes me wonder because diabetes is rampant in my husbands family.

Since I was diagnosed, I have wondered if his genetics has anything to do with this… 😂

4

oldmankitty t1_jdpc4j3 wrote

Dang that's crazy I hope your pregnancy is as healthy as it can be.

2

Murderface__ t1_jdmz4oi wrote

The ovum released once a month actually free floats in the peritoneal cavity momentarily as it travels between the ovary and fallopian tubes.

8

MrCW64 t1_jdm7sc0 wrote

So the egg that was created by the mother grows into a baby and a placenta that were not created by the mother???

7

darw1nf1sh OP t1_jdmamzn wrote

The TIL bit, is that the placenta does not develop directly from the mothers body, but rather the egg, as part of its development, differentiates cells into the placenta AND the fetus directly. This only happens to fertilized eggs, so the mother cannot do this on her own. My naive ass thought the placenta was grown by the woman's body. It is not.

20

neobeguine t1_jdma7my wrote

The placenta and fetus have HALF the mothers DNA and half the fathers. The father's half is foreign DNA to the mother. This is relevant, for example when the mother and fetus's blood type are incompatible which can lead to the mothers immune system attacking the fetus

13

level27jennybro t1_jdmrgv9 wrote

And you end up with a rhogam shot injected directly in your ass cheek.

5

Darlmary t1_jdmw0n8 wrote

Yep. I'm A- and my husband is A+. Thankfully, rhogam exists! Both my daughters are A+, so they won't need it if they choose to conceive.

3

trimolius t1_jdmywle wrote

Something I learned when it happened to me is that they make rhogam for when this happens with Anti-D antibodies but there are other antibodies your baby could have like Anti-E and Anti-K (Kell) that they don’t make a shot for! It can be very dangerous.

3

crazyhadron t1_jdlx6ms wrote

Even more like a parasite, leeching off the host body, mind-controlling it using hormones.

4

kremit73 t1_jdmhmjw wrote

Placenta is a parasite

3

marvello96 t1_jdnacga wrote

Someone get the girl with the list

2

Luke4Pez t1_jdnzrhh wrote

What exactly does this mean? I’m very confused.

2

darw1nf1sh OP t1_jdo3830 wrote

So are a lot of commenters. The placenta does not grow from the woman's body. The egg splits and become both the fetus and the placenta.

6

Luke4Pez t1_jdocb4s wrote

Oh I see. That’s very interesting. When I was a baby I apparently had two of them. I wonder what that means? 🤔

3

HuskyLuke t1_jdo5yfc wrote

I'm too drunk right now to understand that shit.

2

jim45804 t1_jdp336u wrote

So that's why some people are full of shit!

1

Pseudonymico t1_jdqkuso wrote

It's also legal to eat the placenta in at least some parts of the world.

This means that you can have your baby and eat it too.

1

I2eB6L t1_jdmez4n wrote

Since the mother makes the egg, she makes the placenta

−1

Tandence t1_jdmwfra wrote

The egg is only the mother's genes, the placenta is a combination of mother and father genes, i.e. the child.

17

LittleFairyOfDeath t1_jdno3f9 wrote

The father only provides some genes. All the nutrients and whatever comes from the mother. The mother absolutely provides way more than the father

1

I2eB6L t1_jdnnxht wrote

That may be, however, the mother still makes it with the fathers genes

−1

so_bold_of_you t1_jdp4mh6 wrote

No. The mother’s body is the environment in which it is made, but the cells themselves are doing the dividing/growing. The cells would do the same thing in a petri dish, too.

2

I2eB6L t1_jdr4548 wrote

Dang... its almost like the environment helped make something. Its providing shelter and nutrients... like saying my mom didnt raise me because i ate my own food

0

so_bold_of_you t1_jdr5vdr wrote

Difference between passive and active. An environment is passive in the sense that the resources are there, but unless an active agent makes use of them, resources stay in their raw forms.

1

I2eB6L t1_jdr7sn3 wrote

Everyones argueing my use of the word "make". Im not trying to be scientific, so please can we understand words have multiple uses. The mother makes the baby and everything the do with it. Yes, the father does something, yes, the cells take over themselves. But the mother provides the location and the initial nutrients. We use "make" for situations like this

0

[deleted] t1_jdmy7bs wrote

[deleted]

11

I2eB6L t1_jdnoce5 wrote

Its inside the mother, using the mothers energy and nutrients. Maybe my use of "make" is a bit basic, but i think it still counts

0

[deleted] t1_jdompl3 wrote

[deleted]

−1

jimfazio123 t1_jdot7ff wrote

If you buy a loaf of bread at the store, did the bakery make your sandwich? No, it just supplied the materials needed for you to make it.

With the genetic information from the sperm, the fertilized egg utilizes the nutrients available to divide and construct the placenta from part of itself. Without the sperm, the only thing that (unfertilized) egg is doing is flushing out of the uterus.

0

[deleted] t1_jdoubc8 wrote

[deleted]

1

jimfazio123 t1_jdov8v0 wrote

Where does the sperm come from, the mother as well?

The placenta has the same genetic makeup as the fetus. The mother doesn't make it; she supplies the nutrients. It's not a difficult distinction, and yet.. it's still a distinction.

2

[deleted] t1_jdovpqh wrote

[deleted]

0

jimfazio123 t1_jdoxrur wrote

The blastocyst builds both the fetus and the placenta, which acts essentially as a parasite, to the point that it secretes chemical compounds and has its own purpose-specific immune cells that allow it to suppress the mother's immune system to avoid being treated as a foreign body. All the instructions come from within the embryo/fetus, all direction comes from within the embryo/fetus. If at any point the embryo/fetus stops providing directions, development stops. The mother doesn't build the fetus, it's just built within her body.

2

[deleted] t1_jdp04nf wrote

[deleted]

2

jimfazio123 t1_jdp1pnv wrote

Talk about bad analogies, Tupperware man, at least the sandwich analogy had a logical throughline.

At least you agree the fetus/placenta is acting parasitically, i.e. it's stealing resources to sustain and build itself, i.e. (here's the big one) not being built by the host.

A fertilized egg isn't just a blueprint. It's a living cell, capable of division as a typical cell tends to be.

3

[deleted] t1_jdp2t6q wrote

[deleted]

1

jimfazio123 t1_jdp7pwe wrote

Except I said at the very beginning, including with my own analogy, that the nutrients come from elsewhere. I never said anything about it being an isolated system, because that would clearly be a) impossible just as a general rule but also b) against the concept of parasitism.. Clearly you have never read anything about parasites because "host" is the other half of the parasitic relationship. If I was a "dumbass Republican" I wouldn't be calling it a fetus, nor would I point out its parasitic nature, now would I? In this context it's purely scientific nomenclature, not political, for me to refer to parasite and host.

And do the hosts build the parasitic organism?

No. They supply the nutrients for the organism to build itself. It's not magic, it's biology.

2

jimfazio123 t1_jdp8dvy wrote

Does the mother build the baby once it's out of the womb? It still requires nourishment, and historically that would be in the form of breast milk for many months. The baby continues to grow and develop outside the womb and doesn't reach maturity for decades, at what point is it being built by itself and not by something else?

The mother feeds the fetus through the placenta, a parasitic organism, same as she feeds the baby once it's born, same as the child feeds itself into adolescence and adulthood. She doesn't build it.

2

CapitalistVenezuelan t1_jdmnagg wrote

It's all created by the mother though?

−2

mittenknittin t1_jdmveh2 wrote

To the extent that it grows from resources provided by the mother’s body, sure. But the coded instructions, so to speak, for growing the placenta, come from the fetus.

10

bluehunger t1_jdojerj wrote

Does anyone really care?

−2

Mama_Mush t1_jdouamd wrote

Thousands of researchers, millions of doctors and more millions of women.

3

malary1234 t1_jdp7foj wrote

You mean the egg….that the mother created?

−2

LittleFairyOfDeath t1_jdnntc8 wrote

Considering the mother’s body creates said egg the placenta is still made by the mother

−3

jimfazio123 t1_jdososg wrote

The placenta is made by the fertilized egg, which is jointly created by the sperm and the unfertilized egg.. so no, the placenta is not made by the mother.

2

LittleFairyOfDeath t1_jdqc0i4 wrote

Again the spermcell provides very little. Yes 50% of genetic material but everything else, like the mitochondria is from the mother.

0

Zombieff t1_jdmzcs8 wrote

> TIL, the placenta that forms with a fetus isn't created by the mother

Why would you think that it is?

−6

mtled t1_jdn53f2 wrote

The cells of the placenta are the foetus' DNA. It is not her organ, it is the foetus'.

5

Zombieff t1_jdn66lr wrote

Yes, I asked why would anyone think otherwise.

−4

mtled t1_jdn7pxw wrote

I admit I misread your comment! Sorry about that, have a nice day!

1

Stevenntrann t1_jdoq0aa wrote

Yeah but the eggs come from the mother, just trying to create another argument for abortion, Just wear protection or practice safe sex. Simple as that

−6

Mama_Mush t1_jdouica wrote

Lmao. Neither protection or safe sex protect against birth defects or pregnancy issues. The egg may come from the mother but the fetus and its placenta are foreign material to her body.

6

Stevenntrann t1_jdoyb1d wrote

Yeah I guess, but if you practiced safe sex or protection you wouldnt have birth defects to worry about. So it’s a if-that-then-this kinda of statement. Also I don’t know too much about anatomy but in the womb, if theres a physical connection, in this case, cellular connection, the body would treat it as such. This is not your argument if you believe that its a foreign material. Foreign materials for the most part would get rejected from the body, create abscess and pus to isolate the material and slowly eject it by whatever means.

−6

Mama_Mush t1_jdpzeh2 wrote

Yes, there would be a risk of defects in wanted pregnancies, in contraceptive failures or sexual assault. As for anatomy during pregnancy, the mothers body DOES see the fetal placenta as foreign, which is why the immune system is suppressed by various mechanisms during pregnancy, so thar her body doesn't attack the fetus. My background is biochemistry and embryology so I DO know a lot about anatomy and maternal vs fetal behavior. The most practical and kind approach would be for anti choice people to not interfere in things they know nothing about. Let the doctor and the woman make decisions about her life and body.

3

darw1nf1sh OP t1_jdp5mol wrote

This isn't about any of that. This is just a, hey this is interesting. Only you thought of abortion. And btw, yes, an ectopic pregnancy is reason for abortion. And yes it happens to married, straight couples that want kids. But in the event the worst happens, and the woman's life is threatened, it should be on the table.

2

Stevenntrann t1_jdpa5lv wrote

Im sure im not the only one who thought about abortion. It might be an unpopular opinion in reddit. To be frank, I’m for abortion in dire circumstances like rape. I also think life is sacred and if the baby can be birthed, it should.

0

amazonfamily t1_jdpnmk4 wrote

the person who has an extrauterine pregnancy desperately needs an abortion but your comment is out of nowhere

1

mmgoodly t1_jdmv6gr wrote

Countdown to removal by mods: Five. Four...

I mean, seriously, I've see two just today which were zapped while still being interesting AF,

−8

platinums99 t1_jdlvfwn wrote

Hol up. The fertilised egg is created by the mother . What a stupid and confusing title op.

−21

redheadartgirl t1_jdlvqyv wrote

To better clarify, the placenta has the fetus's DNA, not the mother's. It's correct to say it isn't created by the mother.

30

krustymeathead t1_jdly673 wrote

yeah the mother is a separate host. sorta like having a tapeworm. except the mother also has organs with tapeworm eggs.

7

trimolius t1_jdmzvu1 wrote

Right? Like I get what the fact is supposed to be but the wording is annoying. Whose blood, oxygen and nutrients is the organ sponging off of to get bigger and bigger. The placenta is created by the mother as much as the baby is - i.e. completely.

1

jimfazio123 t1_jdosdql wrote

Completely? No sperm, no embryo/fetus/baby and no placenta either.

1