Allergies-Why do Amish children suffer less from them?

I've simply never heard of the racial vaginal differences that would affect giving birth to a child of mixed origins. Increased risk of fetus rejection, etc., sure...
 
Athiudisc said:
I've simply never heard of the racial vaginal differences that would affect giving birth to a child of mixed origins. Increased risk of fetus rejection, etc., sure...
Click to expand...
Well, maybe this photo will give you an understanding of what I am on about-

EJX309d.png


Hm, I guess an East Asian woman or a Caucasian woman would have a pretty tough time giving birth to her mixed-race Australoid baby. That is, if it doesn't kill her, and neither does the C-section, smarty. We all know that you're smart, Athiudisc.
 
I can't help but think that varying skull morphology of that type probably isn't a huge factor when birthing a child, due simply to the relative size involved. I would tend to think that the varying shapes within a population group are just as significant in the specific instance of passing through a birth canal, and doubtless accounted for by nature.

But I could be completely wrong, I suppose. Do you have any reference to this actually being an issue?
 
Athiudisc said:
I can't help but think that varying skull morphology of that type probably isn't a huge factor when birthing a child, due simply to the relative size involved. I would tend to think that the varying shapes within a population group are just as significant in the specific instance of passing through a birth canal, and doubtless accounted for by nature.

But I could be completely wrong, I suppose. Do you have any reference to this actually being an issue?
Click to expand...
Why so curious? Why so many questions?

"I can't help but think that varying skull morphology of that type probably isn't a huge factor when birthing a child, due simply to the relative size involved."

Are you serious? Can you explain to me what you just wrote there? Probably? PROBABLY? So it "probably isn't?" wtf!! Ahahahahaha. I've never heard an argument or attempted rebuttal that started with a "probably isn't"...
 
So that's a no...

You're losing your grip, Melancon.
 
What is a no? What studies do you have? Give me some links that prove that Miscegenation comes with lesser birth defects. Mind you, I want government documents, not something from some news article in the UK.

I believe that you are the one who is losing their grip.

Source-

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15390318

"A total of 11.2% of births were to parents of mixed race-ethnicity. Compared to births of parents who were both white, moderately increased risks (risk ratio >/= 1.7) of anencephaly, polydactyly, and microtia, and decreased risks (risk ratio </= 0.6) of hypospadias and hypertrophic pyloric stenosis were observed among births of several mixed race-ethnicity groups. For anencephaly, polydactyly, and microtia, but not other phenotypes, the risks were different depending on whether maternal versus paternal race-ethnicity was considered. Risks observed between births of a nonwhite parent and a white parent and births of parents who were both nonwhite were similar for most malformation phenotypes."

There is your proof that Miscegenation right there, comes with more risk factors for birth defects...if I cannot get it into your head, then it is worthless. People are free to marry whomever they want, but I wouldn't recommend it.
 
You want a study showing that there aren't problems attendant to birthing a child of mixed origin due to cranial shape?

:LOL:

Do you have a single study suggesting that there are?
 
You must have provided the wrong link. The differing skull shapes of population groups are not malformations, and are not addressed in the study you referenced.
 
You won't find, or find very little, in this day and age, the truths of Miscegenation. But pre-WW2 books on anthropology (mostly by Norwegians and Danes) found that the risk of congenital defects and mother-infant mortality during birth were substantially higher with mixed-couples than those of the norm. These people were not Nazi's either. It is harder to find these days, especially in Europe, because Political correctness has attempted to hide this information from the mainstream.
 
Ok. I don't believe that addresses the idea that women have difficulty birthing a child of mixed origin due to the natural form of either skull or vagina, though, which is what started our exchange.
 
Even if I did find that book, it's written in Old Danish - you would not be able to read it. But I am sure there are several anthropology books from pre-WW2 that can be found in almost every country, saying the same things regarding Miscegenation. Try searching Google Books, as will I.
 
I'm not arguing against the deleterious effects you're speaking of.

I doubt that a thousand year-old book would be of much use.
 
Athiudisc said:
Ok. I don't believe that addresses the idea that women have difficulty birthing a child of mixed origin due to the natural form of either skull or vagina, though, which is what started our exchange.
Click to expand...
How could it not be obvious though? Put two and two together. Imagine a short, skinny Ectomorph East Asian female giving birth to a tall, robust Endomorphic Australoid male's child. You don't believe her tiny body would have problems with that?
 
Athiudisc said:
I'm not arguing against the deleterious effects you're speaking of.

I doubt that a thousand year-old book would be of much use.
Click to expand...
It wasn't a thousand years old. It was written in Old Danish for the simple reason that both Norwegian and Danish anthropologists to read about it....and better understand...
 
Virtue said:
How could it not be obvious though? Put two and two together. Imagine a short, skinny Ectomorph East Asian female giving birth to a tall, robust Endomorphic Australoid male's child. You don't believe her tiny body would have problems with that?
Click to expand...

Not any more than she'd have with the odd stocky Asian child, no.
 
Virtue said:
It wasn't a thousand years old. It was written in Old Danish for the simple reason that both Norwegian and Danish anthropologists to read about it....and better understand...
Click to expand...

Ok. I wasn't aware this was a thing, honestly.
 
Athiudisc said:
I'm not arguing against the deleterious effects you're speaking of.

I doubt that a thousand year-old book would be of much use.
Click to expand...
Miscegenation was also banned in the South until 1967-

banning-interracial-marriage.gif


Oops, another ignorance of you, exposed. 1967. Makes me wonder if you are a native to Tennessee.
 
I never claimed to be. Much like I never claimed anything regarding anti-miscegenation laws.

Oops on your part. Keep it together.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 21553 times.

Back
Top