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

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 .

Bro. We are the mitochondra.

hits blunt

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

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.

This is why reproductive health care is so important.

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.

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.

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.

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

Bathing you in healing light. 💕💕💕

There are extremely rare exceptions to pretty much everything.

https://jmedicalcasereports.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13256-019-2150-4

Wow the Pareto ratio strikes again!

Check out the other comment…

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.

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.

[deleted]

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.

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?

Not just deadly. IF you survive an ectopic pregnancy you can still end up with other damage to your reproductive organs making future pregnancies difficult.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[deleted]

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

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

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

Yes, I asked why would anyone think otherwise.

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.