Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

patents.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 230 posts

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#131

Post by lionkor »

candiddevmike wrote: post #80
drekipus wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for sharing this. It's so crucial to know that we have actually lost this information and we're getting worse. > Do you know what is the most uncomfortable position for labour is? Yeah, layin on your back. My wife and I were shocked when we had our first. We were recommended a "natural birth" course that taught us this, and everyone gave us crap about being "woo-woo" and "denying science". Everyone. We also ha…

By the looks of it you are denying science... Hopefully you live close enough to a hospital. Pregnancy complications can happen suddenly and require immediate medical assistance.

> denying science

science isnt a religion, you cant deny it or follow it, there is a rigorous process and sometimes the results are wrong, misleading, or lead to the wrong decisions.

Do not pretend there's an absolute in science, especially medicine, where one can say "this is the only good way" and know it to be true.

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#132

Post by howenterprisey »

causi wrote: post #88
undecisive wrote: post #13

> In the case of a woman who has a fully developed muscular system and has had ample physical exertion all through the pregnancy, as is common with all more primitive peoples, nature provides all the necessary equipment and power to have a normal and quick delivery. This is not the case, however, with more civilized Women who often do not have the opportunity to develop the muscles needed in confinement. Ignoring the…

Ignoring the depressingly-predictable classist/colonialist tone Isn't it an anti-classist tone if anything? It's associating "civilization" with weakness, confinement, and a lack of opportunity, and associating primitive living with fully developed muscles and says it provides for a normal and quick delivery. How is that not an endorsement of primitive living? I don't see how you can call that paragraph colonialist u…

1) It divides people into "primitive" and "civilized", which delineates an ingroup and outgroup;

2) The document is written for civilized people, because surely the document wouldn't call its readers primitive;

3) The flip side of "developed muscles" is "barbaric lifestyle" - the "proper" thing for women at the time was NOT to develop said muscles, but rather to maintain a "trim figure" ("one of the best exercises for a woman are her household duties, and that besides those she doesn't need more exercise", from a 1941 article);

4) In sum, given the context, the "endorsement" is a grudging admission that on this one issue the "primitive" women might be stronger, but in no way an overall endorsement of the lifestyle.

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#133

Post by peteradio »

drekipus wrote: post #53
croo wrote: post #39

Everybody is joking half sarcastically here but childbirth as a process in hospitals do have serious problems and modern day labour leaves deep mental scars in most women while being one of the most important thing in their life. This is definitely a step in the wrong direction however laughable the idea is. Do you know what is the most uncomfortable position for labour is? Yeah, layin on your back. It's just the mos…

Thanks for sharing this. It's so crucial to know that we have actually lost this information and we're getting worse. > Do you know what is the most uncomfortable position for labour is? Yeah, layin on your back. My wife and I were shocked when we had our first. We were recommended a "natural birth" course that taught us this, and everyone gave us crap about being "woo-woo" and "denying science". Everyone. We also ha…

> "the cord is wrapped around the neck" when the baby isn't even using its throat to breathe

This effects blood flow no? This happened to our first born and his heartrate began to drop by half and we began to prepare for an emergency c-section.

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#134

Post by Cort3z »

croo wrote: post #39

Everybody is joking half sarcastically here but childbirth as a process in hospitals do have serious problems and modern day labour leaves deep mental scars in most women while being one of the most important thing in their life. This is definitely a step in the wrong direction however laughable the idea is. Do you know what is the most uncomfortable position for labour is? Yeah, layin on your back. It's just the mos…

It’s a patent from 1963. It expired in the 80s apparently. I guess it didn’t do too well, or even perhaps wasn’t made. Either way, a patent can be made by anyone. Don’t see this as a serious modern attempt at solving child birth. (Edit: auto correct)

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#136

Post by TeMPOraL »

bondarchuk wrote: post #125
pfannkuchen wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone know how the phrase "denying science" crept into people’s vocabulary? I find it incredibly creepy since it sort of treats science as a religion, and usually people who say it seem to know basically nothing about actual science. If I think back before about 10 years ago I don’t think I had ever heard it before. In the past, non-technically minded people didn’t really cite “science” as a concrete reason to…

From my viewpoint (in europe though) I only started hearing/seeing it during coronavirus.

In Poland, I first started hearing it around vaccines and climate discussions couple years before COVID - but that may have been because I was hanging out in various social media groups discussing those topics (and/or just mocking the "science deniers"). The term however seems to have exploded in use since the pandemic. I think it's because it suddenly became relevant to mass audience and journalists started using it.

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#137

Post by jncfhnb »

croo wrote: post #39

Everybody is joking half sarcastically here but childbirth as a process in hospitals do have serious problems and modern day labour leaves deep mental scars in most women while being one of the most important thing in their life. This is definitely a step in the wrong direction however laughable the idea is. Do you know what is the most uncomfortable position for labour is? Yeah, layin on your back. It's just the mos…

What are the ideal positions? Back seems ideal at a naive glance

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#138

Post by permo-w »

woleium wrote: post #119
pfannkuchen wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone know how the phrase "denying science" crept into people’s vocabulary? I find it incredibly creepy since it sort of treats science as a religion, and usually people who say it seem to know basically nothing about actual science. If I think back before about 10 years ago I don’t think I had ever heard it before. In the past, non-technically minded people didn’t really cite “science” as a concrete reason to…

"science denier" sounds like it's language the flat earth folk et al use, coined (I'd imagine) to speak to them in their language, or by themselves as a positive trait?

my eccentric high school English teacher once pointed out that the original connotation of "x denier" is of the holocaust

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#139

Post by jncfhnb »

drekipus wrote: post #53
croo wrote: post #39

Everybody is joking half sarcastically here but childbirth as a process in hospitals do have serious problems and modern day labour leaves deep mental scars in most women while being one of the most important thing in their life. This is definitely a step in the wrong direction however laughable the idea is. Do you know what is the most uncomfortable position for labour is? Yeah, layin on your back. It's just the mos…

Thanks for sharing this. It's so crucial to know that we have actually lost this information and we're getting worse. > Do you know what is the most uncomfortable position for labour is? Yeah, layin on your back. My wife and I were shocked when we had our first. We were recommended a "natural birth" course that taught us this, and everyone gave us crap about being "woo-woo" and "denying science". Everyone. We also ha…

I find it crazy that you’re bothered by scans having a margin of error measured in single digit days.

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#140

Post by permo-w »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #136
bondarchuk wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my viewpoint (in europe though) I only started hearing/seeing it during coronavirus.

In Poland, I first started hearing it around vaccines and climate discussions couple years before COVID - but that may have been because I was hanging out in various social media groups discussing those topics (and/or just mocking the "science deniers"). The term however seems to have exploded in use since the pandemic. I think it's because it suddenly became relevant to mass audience and journalists started using it…

was that in Polish? if so, what is the Polish version?
Post reply on HN