so these macaroni9s had their birthday some days ago so here is another intro to more oc9s. the black and white one is monotone and the yellow one is polygon, both are S class. monotone is suposed to be more like a bombay and polygon is a javanese! also tomor…



it was phil’s birthday yesterday and i forgot


the warriors series came out 15 years ago in all seriousness, i wouldnt be an artist if i never read this series sooooo ur welc also i feel like this would look better without the writing but????????? that capital s took too long so its staying

Snail Gives Birth – Birth of a Snail

A Snail gives birth in Nicosia Cyprus. Filmed in Nature by Marcus Platrides. Film has been speeded up by 4 times. I have the original if anyone is interested. Copyright Marcus Platrides 2016.



it is the day of birth


Fun fact it started off as sperm cells


A birthday gift for CoffeeJan


o hye i can learn how to driv now  ni ce  also tysm for the people that wish me a happy birthday and stuff it means the world to me!! :,DD


happy birthday dad! Andrew-Reach is the birthday boi

Quiet birth

Silent birth, sometimes known as quiet birth, is a birthing procedure advised by L. Ron Hubbard and advocated by Scientologists in which “everyone attending the birth should refrain from spoken words as much as possible” and where “… chatty doctors and nurses, shouts to ‘PUSH, PUSH’ and loud or laughing remarks to ‘encourage’ are avoided”.[1] According to Scientology doctrine, this is because “any words spoken are recorded in the reactive mind and can have an aberrative effect on the mother and the child.”[1] Hubbard believed that breaking the silence during childbirth with words could adversely affect the child later in life. Church members believe that noises, sounds and words while a child is being born can possibly cause trauma, which in turn causes the production of engrams, thus necessitating silent birth. Scientologists believe that it is also a way to assist a newborn in his or her development spiritually.[2]

The concept of silent birth is a mandatory practice in Scientology doctrine. It is based upon the principle that expectant mothers must be provided the utmost care and respect and Hubbard’s words: “Everyone must learn to say nothing within the expectant mother’s hearing using labor and delivery. Particularly during birth, absolute silence must be maintained and the more gentle the delivery, the better.” Silent birth is meant to make the transition to physical separation from the mother less painful for the child. The church does not rule against medication and caesarean section births.[3] There have been no attempts to prove this medically or scientifically and[4] the church does not claim silent birth as a medical approach but a religious and philosophical one.[3]


  • 1 Scientific opinion
  • 2 Ray and Louise Spiering
  • 3 Katie Holmes
  • 4 See also
  • 5 References
  • 6 External links

Scientific opinion[edit]

The efficacy of silent birth has been questioned by a number of doctors and other health care professionals. Patricia Devine, MD, a maternal–fetal medicine specialist who directs the Labor and Delivery Unit at Columbia University Medical Center, said, “There’s absolutely no scientific evidence that taking [noise] away at the time of delivery will have any effect on outcome for the baby or mother.”[4]

When asked whether there was any medical evidence that indicated that silent birth was beneficial, Damian Alagia, MD, associate clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at George Washington University Medical Center, replied, “It may be in the Scientology literature, but it’s not in the scientific literature. In my understanding, L. Ron Hubbard never spent any time in medical school, studying pediatrics or studying neonatal development. To think that a baby born in silence is going to do any better than a baby born, say, listening to Hank Williams is just foolhardy.”[4]

Ray and Louise Spiering[edit]

In 2004, Scientologists Ray and Louise Spiering went to federal court to argue that Nebraska’s mandatory blood test for infants would violate their right to practice the “Silent Birth Method” of their religion. According to the lawsuit “every effort should be made to avoid subjecting the baby to loud sounds, talking, stress or pain during the first seven days of the baby’s life … Because a baby goes through so much pain during the birth process, Scientologists believe that a newborn baby should not be subjected to any further pain or significant sensory experiences.”[5]

Katie Holmes[edit]

The “silent birth” became an object of media interest when it was known that outspoken Scientologist actor Tom Cruise and wife Katie Holmes, who converted to Scientology from Roman Catholicism, were expecting a child. Reports that the couple would follow the practice of silent birth were denied, until photos were taken of large placards being delivered to the couple’s mansion bearing instructions for the silent birth, such as “Be silent and make all physical movements slow and understandable.”[6]

It was often reported in the media during this time that speaking to the infant during the first week of its life was barred by Scientology doctrine as well.[7] A Church spokesperson termed this “a total fabrication.” The Church of Scientology International writes, “L. Ron Hubbard never wrote that parents should not speak to their child for seven days following birth.”[8] The same website also says “[t]he idea of silent birth is based on L. Ron Hubbard’s research into the mind and spirit. He found that words spoken during moments of pain and unconsciousness can have adverse effects on an individual later in life.”[8] The website also says “[m]others naturally want to give their baby the best possible start in life and thus keep the birth as quiet as possible.”[8]

See also[edit]

  • Scientology portal
  • Engram


  • ^ a b Church of Scientology (2006). “Scientology Newsroom”. Archived from the original on 2006-08-13. Retrieved 2006-08-07. 
  • ^ Ashcraft-Eason, Lillian; Martin, Darnise C.; Olademo, Overonke (2010). Women and New African Religions. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9780275991562. 
  • ^ a b Pande, Navodita (2016-05-01). “Silent Birth (Scientology)”. In Sange, Mary Zeiss; Oyster, Carol K. The Multimedia Encyclopedia of Women in Today’s World. SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:10.4135/9781452270388.n385. 
  • ^ a b c Shaw, Gina (2006). “Doctors Sound Off About TomKat ‘Silent Birth’ Plan”. WebMD. Retrieved 2006-05-01. 
  • ^ Cooper, Todd (Dec. 21, 2004). “Blood test for newborns faces religious challenge”. Omaha World-Herald
  • ^ Reuters (2006). “Giddy romance leading Holmes to silent birth: Scientologists believe baby can remember traumatic experiences”. Retrieved 2006-05-01. 
  • ^ MSNBC (2006). “Silent Scientology birth for Tom and Katie?: Group’s birth principles call for no music or talking during labor”. Retrieved 2006-05-07. 
  • ^ a b c Church of Scientology International (2006). “All About Silent Birth”. Retrieved 2006-05-01. 
  • External links[edit]

    • “Silent Birth Questions & Answers”. Scientology Parent. Retrieved January 17, 2017. 
    • “‘Silent Birth’: Separating Reality From Myth” (Press release). Church of Scientology. 2006-04-20. Retrieved 2006-09-26.  Made available on the web by Medical News Today.
    • “Scientology Silent Birth: ‘It’s A Natural Thing'”. An interview with Rev. John Carmichael from the Church of Scientology. Beliefnet. 
    • “‘What is Silent Birth?'”. Article by Thorsten Overgaard, father to twins delivered by Silent Birth. 

    BABY (short film)!.?.!A young lady is adhered to house by

    a complete stranger. BIFA winning brief movie starring European Academy Award Nominee Arta Dobroshi and American Academy Award Nominee Daniel Kaluuya. BFI AND


    Lotus birth

    Extended-delayed cord severance care: intact umbilicus one hour postpartum. 2006

    Lotus birth (or umbilical nonseverance) is the practice of leaving the umbilical cord uncut after childbirth so that the baby is left attached to the placenta until the cord naturally separates at the umbilicus,[1] usually 3-10 days after birth.[2]

    No studies have been done on lotus births and therefore no evidence exists to support any medical benefits for the baby.[3] The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has warned about the risks of infection of this leaving the placenta attached.[3] The practice is performed mainly for spiritual purposes, including for the perceived spiritual connection between placenta and newborn.[4]


    • 1 History
      • 1.1 Modern practice
    • 2 Spiritual
      • 2.1 Relation to nature
      • 2.2 Energy
    • 3 Medicine
      • 3.1 Risks
    • 4 References
    • 5 Further reading


    Although recently arisen as an alternative birth phenomenon in the West, super-delayed (1+ hours post-birth) umbilical severance is common in home births, and umbilical nonseverance has been recorded in a number of cultures including that of the Balinese [5] and of some aboriginal peoples such as the !Kung.

    Early American pioneers, in written diaries and letters, reported practicing nonseverance of the umbilicus as a preventative measure to protect the infant from an open wound infection.[6]

    Modern practice[edit]

    In the 1980s, yoga practitioners brought the idea to the United States and Australia, with the “lotus birth moniker, creating a link between the preciousness of the placenta and the high esteem in which the lotus is held in the Hindu and Buddhist faiths”.[7] Yoga master and midwife Jeannine Parvati Baker being the main advocate for the practice in the United States.[2]

    Jeannine Parvati Baker, yoga master.

    The practice spread to Australia by a midwife, Shivam Rachana, founder of the International College of Spiritual Midwifery and author of the book Lotus Birth.[8]

    In the full lotus birth clinical protocol, the umbilical cord which is attached to the baby’s navel and placenta, is not clamped nor cut, and the baby is immediately placed on the mother’s belly/chest (depending on the length of the cord) or kept in close proximity to the mother in cases when medically necessary procedures such as resuscitation may be needed. In lotus birth, after the placenta is born vaginally (often with the maternal informed choice for passive management of third stage allowing for natural detachment of the placenta within appropriate time allowed for it, with no hormonal injections such as oxytocin) or via cesarean section (the most common operating room procedure in the U.S.).[9]

    Following birth, the placenta is simply put in a bowl or quickly wrapped in absorbent towelling and placed near the mother-baby caregivers step back to allow for undisturbed maternal-child bonding to occur as the primary event for an hour or more. It is only after this initial intense bonding period that the placenta is managed by rinsing, drying, applying preservatives, and positioning it in a way that allows for plentiful air circulation and proximity to the baby. Organs that are separated from their blood supply begin to rot within minutes and the placenta is prone to infection[10]. After several days, the cord dries and detaches from the baby’s belly, generally 3–10 days postpartum.[11][2]. This practice requires the mother to be home bound as she waits for the decomposing flesh of the placenta and umbilical cord to dry and separate from the baby[12].


    Umbilical nonseverance, postpartum water immersion shortly after homebirth. 2005

    Relation to nature[edit]

    Significantly delayed cord cutting as well as nonseverance is found in birth anthropology along with the universality of reverence for the cord & placenta (as found in the Tree of Life beliefs of tribal cultures around the world and reported to the world by scholar & professor Joseph Campbell).

    Primatologist Jane Goodall, who was the first person to conduct long-term studies of chimpanzees in the wild, reported that they did not chew or cut their offspring’s cords, instead leaving the umbilicus intact, like many other monkeys.[13] Though other mammals may sever their offspring’s cords, they only do so after initial maternal sensory reception, unwinding of the cord, massage/cleaning (through touch), and initiation of nursing [14] phase which has been observed to involve at least one hour, if left undisturbed.


    Proponents of lotus births view the baby and the placenta as one on a cellular level, as they are from the same source, the egg and sperm conceptus. They also assert that the newborn and the placenta exist within the same quantum field, thus influencing various expressions of quantum mechanics that influence health[15] Transfers of energy & cellular information continue to take place, moving gradually from the tissue of the placenta to the baby during the drying process. Scientists challenge this claim of a metaphysical dimension related to quantum mechanics. [16]


    A graphic showing the relationship of a developing baby and the placenta.

    Lotus births are an extremely rare practice in hospitals.[4] Lotus birth is a routine practice found in the culture of present-day Bali, a recently established practice in Australian hospitals (including for cases of prematurity and cesarean)[17] and is occasionally practiced in clinical birth centers and home births worldwide.


    We are aware that a number of women are choosing umbilical non-severance, known as lotus birth, and this is something we would discourage. … If you wanted to pick an environment that encourages bacteria to grow you probably could not do better than to leave the placenta attached after birth. … Soon after the baby is born there is no longer any circulation in the placenta, so it’s dead tissue and full of blood, making it the perfect culture medium for bacteria.

    Pat O’Brien, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists[7]

    The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) has stated, “If left for a period of time after the birth, there is a risk of infection in the placenta which can consequently spread to the baby. The placenta is particularly prone to infection as it contains blood. At the post-delivery stage, it has no circulation and is essentially dead tissue,” and the RCOG strongly recommends that any baby that undergoes lotus birthing be monitored closely for infection.[3]

    Other risks include Jaundice caused by abnormally high bilirubin and Polycythemia an abnormally high percentage of red blood cells in circulation [18]


  • ^ 1955-, Walsh, Denis, (2007-01-01). Evidence-based care for normal labour and birth : a guide for midwives. Routledge. ISBN 0415418909. OCLC 156908214. 
  • ^ a b c Bindley, Katherine (12 April 2013). “Lotus Birth: Does Not Cutting The Umbilical Cord Benefit Baby?”. Huffington Post. Retrieved 22 March 2017. 
  • ^ a b c “RCOG statement on umbilical non-severance or “lotus birth””. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Retrieved 2017-02-09. 
  • ^ a b Burns, Emily (Winter 2014). “More Than Clinical Waste? Placenta Rituals Among Australian Home-Birthing Women”. The Journal of Perinatal Education. 23 (1): 41–49.  |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  • ^ see Eat, Pray, Love by Elizabeth Gilbert, pp. 252-252
  • ^ Leavitt, Judith Walzer. Brought to Bed: Childbearing in America, 1750 to 1950. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986 pp.21-37
  • ^ a b Carroll, Helen (3 October 2013). “Is this the craziest (and most reckless) birthing fad EVER?: In lotus birthing, babies can be left with their placenta attached for TEN days… and doctors are horrified”. Daily Mail.  |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  • ^ Hansen, Jane (23 June 2013). “Risky new trend of lotus birth”. The Sunday Telegraph.  |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  • ^ stats
  • ^ Gunter, Jennifer. “A lotus birth is leaving a newborn attached to a decomposing placenta”. Retrieved 23 April 2018. 
  • ^ Integral Life Practice: A 21st-Century Blueprint for Physical Health, Emotional Balance, Mental Clarity, and Spiritual Awakening. Wilber, Patton, Leonard, Morelli. Integral Books, 2008. ISBN 1590304675
  • ^ Senapathy, Kavin. “Lotus Birth”. Skeptical Inquirer. Retrieved 23 April 2018. 
  • ^ See In the Shadow of Man by Jane Goodall.
  • ^ Human Birth: An Evolutionary Perspective. Wenda Trevathan PhD, Univ of New Mexco Press, 2011. ISBN 1412815029
  • ^ The New Physics of Healing lecture, Harvard Medical School, Deepak Chopra MD, Cambridge, Mass.  ISBN 156455919X , Audio recording.
  • ^ Stenger, Victor. “Quantum Quackery”. Skeptical Inquirer. Retrieved 23 April 2018. 
  • ^ Rachana, Shivam (2000). Lotus Birth: Leaving the Umbilical Cord Intact. Greenwood. 
  • ^ “Lotus births are trending….and they’re probably a terrible idea”. Pure Wow. Retrieved 23 April 2018. 
  • Further reading[edit]

    • Buckley MD., Sarah. Gentle Birth, Gentle Mothering, Australia, 2006
    • Davies RN, Leap RN, McDonald. Examination of the Newborn & Neonatal Health: A Multidimensional Approach, Elsevier Health Sciences, 2008. ISBN 0-443-10339-9
    • Lim CPM, Robin. After the Baby’s Birth: A Complete Guide for Postpartum Women, Ten Speed Press, U.S. 2001
    • Parvati Baker, Jeannine. Prenatal Yoga & Natural Childbirth, North Atlantic Books, U.S., 2001
    • Trevathan, Wenda. Human Birth: An Evolutionary Perspective, Univ. of New Mexico Press, 2011
    • World Health Organization (WHO). Care in normal birth: A practical guide, report of a technical working group, Geneva, Switzerland, 1997

    Tracing Nelson Mandela's Footsteps 100 Years After His Birth

    Tracing Nelson Mandela’s Footsteps 100 Years After His Birth

    July 18 marks 100 years since the birth of Nelson Mandela, who died in 2013.

    New Zealand Leader Leaves Hospital 3 Days After Giving Birth

    New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and her partner have named their baby daughter Neve and say they want her to grow up in a world in which she can make choices about her family and career based on what she wants.

    Katos Birth

    Katos Birth

    Dis is a b-day icon for KatoQuest so wish her a happy b-day! 

    Linky9s birth

    Luna: My baby bro! Lori: As sweet as little angel. Luan: No one can feel baby blue around him. Lynn: I wanna play with him. Leni: I wanna be a mama one day. Request by Characters belong to Chris Savino and Nickelodeon.

    Hewuzi9s birth

    King Nuavie and queen Nwazi had a cub named Hewuzi. The mandril Hakiu  shows Hewuzi to the animals and they cheer over the new cub at the pride lands. 

    Skeeze’s birth

    “Yep, there’s me, rising from the Royal blood pools of hell… To the left is my mother, who’s angry at my father for being late. My father not wanting to be there what so ever” Drawn by MegaboatmaN

    horny birth

    Air Pollution Near Power Plants Tied to Premature Births

    Air Pollution Near Power Plants Tied to Premature Births

    Closing coal- and oil-fired power plants is associated with a reduction in preterm births in the surrounding region, researchers report.

    Notre Dame Students Sue School, White House Over Birth Control Policy

    Students at the University of Notre Dame on Tuesday sued the Indiana school and the Trump administration over a move this year to drop coverage for some forms of birth control from the university’s health insurance plan, citing religious objection…

    Astral Birth

    Astral Birth

    Birth Pangs

    Birth Pangs In his latest film, Los Angeles-based director Eliot Rausch, who recently finished working on a documentary alongside Babel director Alejandro González Iñárritu, turns his lens on historic injustices in a haunting portrait that continues his work …

    birth card

    Birth Control

    Today’s episode is an important one; birth control! Garance chats up Tori, Natalie and Emily about the variety of options out there, the side effects of taking it, some very funny mishaps and how lucky we are to have access to it and talk about it so openly.

    .: Day-birth :.

    I decided to draw myself a lil gift for a special day <3

    Birth order

    “Younger brother” redirects here. For other uses, see Younger brother (disambiguation).

    Claims that birth order affects human psychology are prevalent in family literature, but studies find such effects to be vanishingly small.

    Birth order refers to the order a child is born in their family; first-born and second-born are examples. Birth order is often believed to have a profound and lasting effect on psychological development. This assertion has been repeatedly challenged.[1] Recent research has consistently found that earlier born children score slightly higher on average on measures of intelligence, but has found zero, or almost zero, robust effect of birth order on personality.[2] Nevertheless, the notion that birth-order significantly influences personality continues to have a strong presence in pop psychology and popular culture.[3][4]


    • 1 Theory
    • 2 Personality
    • 3 Intelligence
    • 4 Sexual orientation
    • 5 See also
    • 6 References
    • 7 External links


    Alfred Adler (1870–1937), an Austrian psychiatrist, and a contemporary of Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, was one of the first theorists to suggest that birth order influences personality. He argued that birth order can leave an indelible impression on an individual’s style of life, which is one’s habitual way of dealing with the tasks of friendship, love, and work. According to Adler, firstborns are “dethroned” when a second child comes along, and this may have a lasting influence on them, causing them to develop a Middle child syndrome. Younger and only children may be pampered and spoiled, which was suggested to affect their later personalities.[5]

    Since Adler’s time, the influence of birth order on the development of personality has become a controversial issue in psychology. Among the general public, it is widely believed that personality is strongly influenced by birth order, but many psychologists dispute this. One modern theory of personality states that the Big Five personality traits of Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism represent most of the important elements of personality that can be measured. Contemporary empirical research shows that birth order does not influence the Big Five personality traits.[6]

    In his book Born to Rebel, Frank Sulloway suggested that birth order had powerful effects on the Big Five personality traits. He argued that firstborns were much more conscientious and socially dominant, less agreeable, and less open to new ideas compared to laterborns.[7] However, critics such as Fred Townsend, Toni Falbo, and Judith Rich Harris, argue against Sulloway’s theories. A full issue of Politics and the Life Sciences, dated September, 2000 but not published until 2004[8] due to legal threats from Sulloway, contains carefully and rigorously researched criticisms of Sulloway’s theories and data. Subsequent large independent multi-cohort studies have revealed approximately zero-effect of birth order on personality.[9]

    In their book Sibling Relationships: Their Nature and Significance across the Lifespan, Michael E. Lamb and Brian Sutton-Smith argue that as individuals continually adjust to competing demands of socialization agents and biological tendencies, any effects of birth order may be eliminated, reinforced, or altered by later experiences.[10]


    The Marx Brothers.

    Claims about birth order effects on personality have received much attention in scientific research, with the conclusion from the largest, best-designed research being that effects are zero [6] or near zero.[11] Such research is a challenge because of the difficulty of controlling all the variables that are statistically related to birth order. Family size, and a number of social and demographic variables are associated with birth order and serve as potential confounds. For example, large families are generally lower in socioeconomic status than small families. Hence third-born children are not only third in birth order, but they are also more likely to come from larger, poorer families than firstborn children. If third-born children have a particular trait, it may be due to birth order, or it may be due to family size, or to any number of other variables. Consequently, there are a large number of published studies on birth order that are confounded.

    Literature reviews that have examined many studies and attempted to control for confounding variables tend to find minimal effects for birth order. Ernst and Angst reviewed all of the research published between 1946 and 1980. They also did their own study on a representative sample of 6,315 young men from Switzerland. They found no substantial effects of birth order and concluded that birth order research was a “waste of time.”[12] More recent research analyzed data from a national sample of 9,664 subjects on the Big Five personality traits of extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. Contrary to Sulloway’s predictions, they found no significant correlation between birth order and self-reported personality. There was, however, some tendency for people to perceive birth order effects when they were aware of the birth order of an individual.[13]

    Smaller studies have partially supported Sulloway’s claims. Paulhus and colleagues reported that first borns scored higher on conservatism, conscientiousness and achievement orientation, and later borns higher on rebelliousness, openness, and agreeableness. The authors argued that the effect emerges most clearly from studies within families. Results are weak at best, when individuals from different families are compared. The reason is that genetic effects are stronger than birth order effects.[14] Recent studies also support the claim that only children are not markedly different from their peers with siblings. Scientists have found that they share many characteristics with firstborn children including being conscientious as well as parent-oriented.[15]

    In her review of the research, Judith Rich Harris suggests that birth order effects may exist within the context of the family of origin, but that they are not enduring aspects of personality. When people are with their parents and siblings, firstborns behave differently from laterborns, even during adulthood. However, most people don’t spend their adult lives in their childhood home. Harris provides evidence that the patterns of behavior acquired in the childhood home don’t affect the way people behave outside the home, even during childhood. Harris concludes that birth order effects keep turning up because people keep looking for them, and keep analyzing and reanalyzing their data until they find them.[16]


    Several studies have found that first borns have slightly higher IQ than later borns.[17][2] Such data are, however, confounded with family size,[11] which is in turn correlated with IQ confounds, such as social status.

    Robert Zajonc argued for a “confluence” model in which the lack of siblings experienced by first borns exposes them to the more intellectual adult family environment. This predicts similar increases in IQ for siblings who next-oldest sibling is at least five years senior. These children are considered to be “functional firstborns”. The theory further predicts that firstborns will be more intelligent than only children, because the latter will not benefit from the “tutor effect” (i.e. teaching younger siblings).

    In a metanalysis, Polit and Falbo (1988) found that firstborns, only children, and children with one sibling all score higher on tests of verbal ability than later-borns and children with multiple siblings.[18] This supports the conclusion that parents who have smaller families also have children with higher IQs. Resource dilution theory (RDT) suggests that siblings divert resources from each other. The metanalysis, however, found no such effect. Additional claims have been made, for instance that siblings compete for parental affection and other resources via academic achievement balancing out confluence effects.

    Three siblings from the 1890s.

    The claim that firstborns have higher IQ scores has been disputed. Data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth show no relationship between birth order and intelligence.[1] Likewise, data from the National Child Development Study in the United Kingdom has failed to support the hypothesis.[19]

    Sexual orientation[edit]

    The fraternal birth order effect is the name given to the theory that the more older brothers a man has, the greater the probability is that he will have a homosexual orientation. The fraternal birth order effect is said to be the strongest known predictor of sexual orientation, with each older brother increasing a man’s odds of being gay by approximately 33%.[20][21] (One of the largest studies to date, however, suggests a smaller effect, of 15% higher odds.[22][23]) Even so, the fraternal birth order effect only accounts for a maximum of one seventh of the prevalence of homosexuality in men. There seems to be no effect on sexual orientation in women, and no effect of the number of older sisters.

    In Homosexuality, Birth Order, and Evolution: Toward an Equilibrium Reproductive Economics of Homosexuality, Edward M. Miller suggests that the birth order effect on homosexuality may be a by-product of an evolved mechanism that shifts personality away from heterosexuality in laterborn sons.[24] According to Miller, this would have the consequence of reducing the probability of these sons engaging in unproductive competition with each other. Evolution may have favored biological mechanisms prompting human parents to exert affirmative pressure toward heterosexual behavior in earlier-born children: As more children in a family survive infancy and early childhood, the continued existence of the parents’ gene line becomes more assured (cf. the pressure on newly-wed European aristocrats, especially young brides, to produce “an heir and a spare”), and the benefits of encouraging heterosexuality weigh less strongly against the risk of psychological damage that a strongly heteronormative environment poses to a child predisposed toward homosexuality.

    More recently, this birth order effect on sexuality in males has been attributed to a very specific biological occurrence. As the mother gives birth to more sons, she is thought to develop an immunity to certain male-specific antigens. This immunity then leads to an effect in the brain that has to do with sexual preference. Yet this biological effect is seen only in right-handed males. If not right-handed, the number of older brothers has been found to have no prediction on the sexuality of a younger brother. This has led researchers to consider if the genes for sexuality and handedness are somehow related.[25]

    Not all studies, including some with large, nationally representative samples, have been able to replicate the fraternal birth order effect. Some did not find any statistically significant difference in the sibling composition of gay and straight men;[26][27] this includes the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health,[28] the largest U.S. study with relevant data on the subject. Furthermore, at least one study, on the familial correlates of joining a same-sex union or marriage in a sample of two million people in Denmark, found that the only sibling correlate of joining a same-sex union among men was having older sisters, not older brothers.[29]

    See also[edit]

    • Adlerian
    • Family
    • Firstborn (Judaism)
    • Individual psychology
    • Only child
    • Primogeniture
    • Sibling rivalry
    • The Birth Order Book


  • ^ a b Rodgers, JL; Cleveland, HH; Van Den Oord, E; Rowe, DC (2000). “Resolving the debate over birth order, family size, and intelligence”. The American Psychologist. 55 (6): 599–612. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.6.599. PMID 10892201. 
  • ^ a b Rohrer, Julia M.; Egloff, Boris; Schmukle, Stefan C. (2015-11-17). “Examining the effects of birth order on personality”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 112 (46): 14224–14229. doi:10.1073/pnas.1506451112. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 4655522 . PMID 26483461. 
  • ^ Isaacson, Clifford E (2002). The Birth Order Effect: How to Better Understand Yourself and Others. Adams Media Corporation. ISBN 1580625517. 
  • ^ Bradshaw, John (1996). The Family: A New Way of Creating Solid Self-esteem. Health Communications. pp. 36–37. ISBN 1558744274. 
  • ^ Adler, A. (1964). Problems of neurosis. New York: Harper and Row.
  • ^ a b Rohrer, Julia M.; Egloff, Boris; Schmukle, Stefan C. (2015-10-19). “Examining the effects of birth order on personality”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 112 (46): 201506451. doi:10.1073/pnas.1506451112. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 4655522 . PMID 26483461. 
  • ^ Sulloway, F.J. (2001). Birth Order, Sibling Competition, and Human Behavior. In Paul S. Davies and Harmon R. Holcomb, (Eds.), Conceptual Challenges in Evolutionary Psychology: Innovative Research Strategies. Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 39-83. “Full text” (PDF).  (325 KB)
  • ^ Harris, Judith Rich (2006), No Two Alike: Human Nature and Human Individuality (pp. 107-112)
  • ^ Rohrer, Julia M.; Egloff, Boris; Schmukle, Stefan C. (2015-11-17). “Examining the effects of birth order on personality”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 112 (46): 14224–14229. doi:10.1073/pnas.1506451112. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 4655522 . PMID 26483461. 
  • ^ Lamb, M. E., Sutton-Smith, B. (1982).Sibling Relationships: Their Nature and Significance of the Lifespan. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • ^ a b Damian, Rodica Ioana; Roberts, Brent W. (2015-11-17). “Settling the debate on birth order and personality”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 112 (46): 14119–14120. doi:10.1073/pnas.1519064112. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 4655556 . PMID 26518507. 
  • ^ Ernst, C. & Angst, J. (1983). Birth order: Its influence on personality. Springer.
  • ^ Jefferson T.; Herbst J. H.; McCrae R. R. (1998). “Associations between birth order and personality traits: Evidence from self-reports and observer ratings”. Journal of Research in Personality. 32 (4): 498–509. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1998.2233. 
  • ^ Paulhus D.L.; Trapnell P.D.; Chen D. (1998). “Birth order effects on personality and achievement within families”. Psychological Science. 10 (6): 482–488. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00193. JSTOR 40063474. 
  • ^ van der Leun, Justine (October 2009). “Does Birth Order Really Matter?”. AOL Health. Retrieved October 2009.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  • ^ Harris, J. R. (1998). The Nurture Assumption: Why children turn out the way they do. New York: Free Press.
  • ^ Belmont, M.; Marolla, F.A. (1973). “Birth order, family size, and intelligence”. Science. 182 (4117): 1096–1101. doi:10.1126/science.182.4117.1096. PMID 4750607. 
  • ^ Polit D. F.; Falbo T. (1988). “The intellectual achievement of only children”. Journal of Biosocial Science. 20 (3): 275–285. doi:10.1017/S0021932000006611. PMID 3063715. 
  • ^ Satoshi Kanazawa (2012). “Intelligence, Birth Order, and Family Size”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 38 (9): 1157–64. doi:10.1177/0146167212445911. 
  • ^ Blanchard R (2001). “Fraternal birth order and the maternal immune hypothesis of male homosexuality”. Hormones and Behavior. 40 (2): 105–114. doi:10.1006/hbeh.2001.1681. PMID 11534970. 
  • ^ Puts, D. A.; Jordan, C. L.; Breedlove, S. M. (2006). “O brother, where art thou? The fraternal birth-order effect on male sexual orientation” (PDF). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 103 (28): 10531–10532. doi:10.1073/pnas.0604102103. PMC 1502267 . PMID 16815969. 
  • ^ Ray Blanchard; Richard Lippa (2007). “Birth Order, Sibling Sex Ratio, Handedness, and Sexual Orientation of Male and Female Participants in a BBC Internet Research Project”. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 36 (2): 163–76. doi:10.1007/s10508-006-9159-7. PMID 17345165. 
  • ^ “BBC – Science & Nature – Sex ID – Study Results”. 
  • ^ Miller EM (2000). “Homosexuality, Birth Order, and Evolution: Toward an Equilibrium Reproductive Economics of Homosexuality”. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 29 (1): 1–34. doi:10.1023/A:1001836320541. PMID 10763427. 
  • ^ Blanchard, Ray. “Review and theory of handedness, birth order, and homosexuality in men.” Laterality, 2008, p. 51-70.
  • ^ B. P. Zietsch; et al. (2012). “Do shared etiological factors contribute to the relationship between sexual orientation and depression?”. Psychological Medicine. 42: 521–532. doi:10.1017/S0033291711001577. PMC 3594769 . PMID 21867592. 
  • ^ Mariana Kishida; Qazi Rahman (2015). “Fraternal Birth Order and Extreme Right-Handedness as Predictors of Sexual Orientation and Gender Nonconformity in Men”. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 44: 1493–1501. doi:10.1007/s10508-014-0474-0. 
  • ^ Francis AM (2008). “Family and sexual orientation: the family-demographic correlates of homosexuality in men and women”. J. Sex Res. 45 (4): 371–7. doi:10.1080/00224490802398357. 
  • ^ Frisch M; Hviid A (2006). “Childhood family correlates of heterosexual and homosexual marriages: a national cohort study of two million Danes”. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 35 (5): 533–47. doi:10.1007/s10508-006-9062-2. PMID 17039403. 
  • External links[edit]

    • Birth order and intelligence
    • Birth order and personality
    • CNN article
    • The Independent article
    • Time article
    • USA Today article on CEOs

    The Latest: New Zealand Leader Jacinda Ardern Gives Birth

    The Latest: New Zealand Leader Jacinda Ardern Gives Birth

    The Latest on New Zealand leader Jacinda Ardern giving birth (all times local):

    Blood Test Might Predict Pregnancy Due Date and Preterm Birth

    The test is far from ready for use, but research is promising. If it works in bigger studies, it could help prevent deaths of babies born prematurely.

    Psdvanity Birth

    Psdvanity Birth

    happy birth

    AYYYYYY it’s len’en’s fourth anniversary this took too long to draw haha i wish i could’ve known about len’en earlier so i could’ve drawn something for it last year but…ew…old art… i own nothing but the art

    .:Mama Birth:.

    Best title at 2am ITS purrwitch ‘s birthday! This woman,,THIS WOMAN RIGHT HERE She protecc and luvs and is just a truly amazing person all around. An amazing n mum friend, fun to call with and kick their ass in Cards Against Humanity chokes But seriously, hap…

    Vayne’s Birth

    The tragedy that created Vayne, the nocturnal hunter.

    Nyxie’s Birth~

    The baby was a tiny golden-furred lombax with little orange-coloured stripes on his ears and a little tuft of pale ginger hair. “Oh, Ratchet… he’s perfect.” “He sure is…” After seeing an adorable anime family picture on Google, I felt like redrawing it in…

    Breech birth

    For other uses, see Breech (disambiguation).

    (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

    A breech birth occurs when a baby is born bottom first instead of head first. Around 3-5% of pregnant women at term (37–40 weeks pregnant) will have a breech baby.[1]

    Most babies in the breech position are born by a caesarean section because it is seen as safer than being born vaginally.[1]

    As most breech babies are delivered by caesarean section in developed countries, doctors and midwives may lose the skills required to safely assist women giving birth to a breech baby vaginally.[1] Delivering all breech babies by caesarean section in developing countries may be very difficult to implement or even impossible as there are not always resources available to provide this service.[2]


    • 1 Cause
      • 1.1 Rates in various medical conditions
    • 2 Types
    • 3 Risks
      • 3.1 Factors influencing the safety
    • 4 Management
      • 4.1 Cesarean or vaginal delivery
    • 5 Twin breech
      • 5.1 Turning the baby
    • 6 People born breech
    • 7 See also
    • 8 References
    • 9 External links


    With regard to the fetal presentation during human gestation, three periods have been distinguished.

    During the first period, which lasts until the 24th gestational week, the incidence of a longitudinal lie increases, with equal proportions of breech or cephalic presentations from this lie. This period is characterized by frequent changes of presentations. The fetuses in breech presentation during this period have the same probability for breech and cephalic presentation at delivery.

    During the second period, lasting from the 25th to the 35th gestational week, the incidence of cephalic presentation increases, with a proportional decrease of breech presentation. The second period is characterized by a higher than random probability that the fetal presentation during this period will also be present at the time of delivery. The increase of this probability is gradual and identical for breech and cephalic presentations during this period.

    In the third period, from the 36th gestational week onward, the incidence of cephalic and breech presentations remain stable, i.e. breech presentation around 3-4% and cephalic presentation approximately 95%. In the general population, incidence of breech presentation at preterm corresponds to the incidence of breech presentation when birth occurs.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

    A breech presentation at delivery occurs when the fetus does not turn to a cephalic presentation. This failure to change presentation can result from endogenous and exogenous factors. Endogenous factors involve fetal inability to adequately move, whereas exogenous factors refer to insufficient intrauterine space available for fetal movements.[10]

    Incidence of breech presentation among diseases and medical conditions with the incidence of breech presentation higher than occurs in the general population, shows that the probability of breech presentation is between 4% and 50%. These data are related to: 1. single series of medical entities; 2. collections of series for some particular medical entity; 3. data obtained from repeated observations under the same conditions; 4. series of two concomitant medical conditions.

    Rates in various medical conditions[edit]

    Fetal entities: First twin 17-30%; Second twin 28-39%; Stillborn 26%; Prader-Willi syndrome 50%, Werdnig-Hoffman syndrome 10%; Smith-Lemli-Opitz syndrome 40%; Fetal alcohol syndrome 40%; Potter anomaly 36%; Zellweger syndrome 27%; Myotonic dystrophy 21%, 13 trisomy syndrome 12%; 18 trisomy syndrome 43%; 21 trisomy syndrome 5%; de Lange syndrome 10%; Anencephalus 6-18%, Spina bifida 20-30%; Congenital Hydrocephalus 24-37%; Osteogenesis imperfecta 33.3%; Amyoplasia 33.3%; Achondrogenesis 33.3%; Amelia 50%; Craniosynostosis 8%; Sacral agenesis 30.4%; Arthrogriposis multiplex congenita 33.3; Congenital dislocation of the hip 33.3%; Hereditary sensory neuropathy type III 25%; Centronuclear myoptathy 16.7%; Multiple pituitary hormone deficiency 50%; Isolated pituitary hormone deficiency 20%; Ectopic posterior pituitary gland 33.3%; Congenital bilateral perisilvian syndrome 33.3; Symmetric fetal growth restriction 40%; Asymmetric fetal growth restriction 40%; Nonimmune hydrops fetalis 15%; Atresio ani 18.2%; Microcephalus 15.4%; Omphalocele 12.5%; Prematurity 40%

    Placental and amniotic fluid entities: Amniotic sheet perpendicular to the placenta 50%; Cornual-fundal implantation of the placenta 30%; Placenta previa 12.5%; Oligohydramnios 17%; Polyhydramnios 15.8%

    Maternal entities: Uterus arcuatus 22.6%; Uterus unicornuatus 33.3%; Uterus bicornuatus 34.8%; Uterus didelphys 30-41%; Uterus septus 45.8%; Leimyoma uteri 9-20%; Spinal cord injury 10%; Carriers of Duchenne muscular dystrophy 17%

    Combination of two medical entities: First twin in uterus with two bodies 14.29%; Second twin in uterus with two bodies 18.52%.[11][12]

    Also, women with previous Caesarean deliveries have a risk of breech presentation at term twice that of women with previous vaginal deliveries.[13]

    The highest possible probability of breech presentation of 50% indicates that breech presentation is a consequence of random filling of the intrauterine space, with the same probability of breech and cephalic presentation in a longitudinally elongated uterus.[14]


    Types of breech depend on how the baby’s legs are lying.

    • A frank breech (otherwise known as an extended breech) is where the baby’s legs are up next to its abdomen, with its knees straight and its feet next to its ears. This is the most common type of breech.
    • A complete breech (flexed) breech is when the baby appears as though it is sitting crossed-legged with its legs bent at the hips and knees.
    • A footling breech is when one or both of the baby’s feet are born first instead of the pelvis. This is more common in babies born prematurely or before their due date.[15]

    In addition to the above, breech births in which the sacrum is the fetal denominator can be classified by the position of a fetus.[16] Thus sacro-anterior, sacro-transverse and sacro-posterior positions all exist, but left sacro-anterior is the most common presentation.[16] Sacro-anterior indicates an easier delivery compared to other forms.


    Umbilical cord prolapse may occur, particularly in the complete, footling, or kneeling breech.[17] This is caused by the lowermost parts of the baby not completely filling the space of the dilated cervix.[17] When the waters break the amniotic sac, it is possible for the umbilical cord to drop down and become compressed.[17] This complication severely diminishes oxygen flow to the baby and the baby must be delivered immediately (usually by Caesarean section[18]) so that he or she can breathe. If there is a delay in delivery, the brain can be damaged. Among full-term, head-down babies, cord prolapse is quite rare, occurring in 0.4 percent. Among frank breech babies the incidence is 0.5 percent,[17] among complete breeches 5 percent,[17] and among footling breeches 15 percent.[17]

    Head entrapment is caused by the failure of the fetal head to negotiate the maternal midpelvis. At full term, the fetal bitrochanteric diameter (the distance between the outer points of the hips) is about the same as the biparietal diameter (the transverse diameter of the skull)—simply put the size of the hips are the same as the size of the head. The relatively larger buttocks dilate the cervix as effectively as the head does in the typical head-down presentation. In contrast, the relative head size of a preterm baby is greater than the fetal buttocks. If the baby is preterm, it may be possible for the baby’s body to emerge while the cervix has not dilated enough for the head to emerge.

    Because the umbilical cord—the baby’s oxygen supply—is significantly compressed while the head is in the pelvis during a breech birth, it is important that the delivery of the aftercoming fetal head not be delayed. If the arm is extended alongside the head, delivery will not occur. If this occurs, the Løvset manoeuvre may be employed, or the arm may be manually brought to a position in front of the chest.[19] The Løvset manoeuvre involves rotating the fetal body by holding the fetal pelvis. Twisting the body such that an arm trails behind the shoulder, it will tend to cross down over the face to a position where it can be reached by the obstetrician’s finger, and brought to a position below the head. A similar rotation in the opposite direction is made to deliver the other arm. In order to present the smallest diameter (9.5 cm) to the pelvis, the baby’s head must be flexed (chin to chest). If the head is in a deflexed position, the risk of entrapment is increased. Uterine contractions and maternal muscle tone encourage the head to flex.

    Oxygen deprivation may occur from either cord prolapse or prolonged compression of the cord during birth, as in head entrapment. If oxygen deprivation is prolonged, it may cause permanent neurological damage (for instance, cerebral palsy) or death. It has been suggested that a fast vaginal delivery would mean the risk of stopping baby’s oxygen supply is reduced. However, there is not enough research to show this and a quick delivery might cause more harm to the baby than a conservative approach to the birth.[20]

    Injury to the brain and skull may occur due to the rapid passage of the baby’s head through the mother’s pelvis. This causes rapid decompression of the baby’s head. In contrast, a baby going through labor in the head-down position usually experiences gradual molding (temporary reshaping of the skull) over the course of a few hours. This sudden compression and decompression in breech birth may cause no problems at all, but it can injure the brain. This injury is more likely in preterm babies. The fetal head may be controlled by a special two-handed grip call the Mariceau-Smellie-Veit manoeuvre or the elective application of forceps. This will be of value in controlling the rate of delivery of the head and reduce decompression. Related to potential head trauma, researchers have identified a relationship between breech birth and autism.[21]

    Squeezing the baby’s abdomen can damage internal organs. Positioning the baby incorrectly while using forceps to deliver the after coming head can damage the spine or spinal cord. It is important for the birth attendant to be knowledgeable, skilled, and experienced with all variations of breech birth.

    Factors influencing the safety[edit]

    • Birth attendant’s skill (and experience with breech birth) – The skill of the doctor or midwife and the number of breech births previously assisted is of crucial importance. Many of the dangers in vaginal birth for breech babies come from mistakes made by birth attendants. With the majority of breech babies being delivered by cesarean section there is more risk that birth attendants will lose their skills in delivering breech babies and therefore increase the risk of harm to the baby during a vaginal delivery.[1][22]
    • Type of breech presentation – the frank breech has the most favorable outcomes in vaginal birth, with many studies suggesting no difference in outcome compared to head down babies.[23] (Some studies, however, find that planned caesarean sections for all breech babies improve outcome. The difference may rest in part on the skill of the doctors who delivered babies in different studies.) Complete breech presentation is the next most favorable position, but these babies sometimes shift and become footling breeches during labour. Footling and kneeling breeches have a higher risk of cord prolapse and head entrapment.[22]
    • Parity – Parity refers to the number of times a woman has given birth before. If a woman has given birth vaginally, her pelvis has “proven” it is big enough to allow a baby of that baby’s size to pass through it. However, a head-down baby’s head often molds (shifts its shape to fit the maternal pelvis) and so may present a smaller diameter than the same-size baby born breech. Research on the issue has been contradictory as far as whether vaginal breech birth is safer when the mother has given birth before, or not.
    • Fetal size in relation to maternal pelvic size – If the mother’s pelvis is roomy and the baby is not large, this is favorable for vaginal breech delivery. However, prenatal estimates of the size of the baby and the size of the pelvis are unreliable.[22]
    • Hyperextension of the fetal head – this can be evaluated with ultrasound. Less than 5% of breech babies have their heads in the “star-gazing” position, face looking straight upwards and the back of the head resting against the back of the neck. Caesarean delivery is absolutely necessary, because vaginal birth with the baby’s head in this position confers a high risk of spinal cord trauma and death.[22]
    • Maturity of the baby – Premature babies appear to be at higher risk of complications if delivered vaginally than if delivered by caesarean section.[22]
    • Progress of labor – A spontaneous, normally progressing, straightforward labor requiring no intervention is a favorable sign.[22]
    • Second twins – If a first twin is born head down and the second twin is breech, the chances are good that the second twin can have a safe breech birth.[24]


    Breech birth position seen at MRI.

    As in labour with a baby in a normal head-down position, uterine contractions typically occur at regular intervals and gradually the cervix begins to thin and open.[25] In the more common breech presentations, the baby’s bottom (rather than feet or knees) is what is first to descend through the maternal pelvis and emerge from the vagina.[17]

    At the beginning of labour, the baby is generally in an oblique position, facing either the right or left side of the mother’s back. The baby’s bottom is the same size in the term baby as the baby’s head. Descent is thus as for the presenting fetal head and delay in descent is a cardinal sign of possible problems with the delivery of the head.

    In order to begin the birth, descent of podalic pole along with compaction and internal rotation needs to occur. This happens when the mother’s pelvic floor muscles cause the baby to turn so that it can be born with one hip directly in front of the other. At this point the baby is facing one of the mother’s inner thighs. Then, the shoulders follow the same path as the hips did. At this time the baby usually turns to face the mother’s back. Next occurs external rotation, which is when the shoulders emerge as the baby’s head enters the maternal pelvis. The combination of maternal muscle tone and uterine contractions cause the baby’s head to flex, chin to chest. Then the back of the baby’s head emerges and finally the face.

    Due to the increased pressure during labour and birth, it is normal for the baby’s leading hip to be bruised and genitalia to be swollen. Babies who assumed the frank breech position in utero may continue to hold their legs in this position for some days after birth.[26]

    Cesarean or vaginal delivery[edit]

    When a baby is born bottom first there is more risk that the birth will not be straight forward and that the baby could be harmed.[27] For example, when the baby’s head passes through the mother’s pelvis the umbilical cord can be compressed which prevents delivery of oxygenated blood to the baby. Due to this and other risks, babies in breech position are usually born by a planned caesarean section in developed countries.[1]

    Caesarean section reduces the risk of harm or death for the baby but does increase risk of harm to the mother compared with a vaginal delivery.[1] It is best if the baby is in a head down position so that they can be born vaginally with less risk of harm to both mother and baby. The next section is looking at External cephalic version or ECV which is a method that can help the baby turn from a breech position to a head down position.

    Vaginal birth of a breech baby has its risks but caesarean sections are not always available or possible, a mother might arrive in hospital at a late stage of her labour or may choose not to have a caesarean section. In these cases, it is important that the clinical skills needed to deliver breech babies are not lost so that mothers and babies are as safe as possible.[1] Compared with developed countries, planned caesarean sections have not produced as good results in developing countries – it is suggested that this is due to more breech vaginal deliveries being performed by experienced, skilled practitioners in these settings.[2]

    Twin breech[edit]

    Twin Breech (vertex and non-vertex twins) [28]

    In twin pregnancies, it is very common for one or both babies to be in the breech position. Most often twin babies do not have the chance to turn around because they are born prematurely. If both babies are in the breech position and the mother has gone into labour early, a cesarean section may be the best option. About 30-40% of twin pregnancies result in only one baby being in the breech position. If this is the case, the babies can be born vaginally.[29] After the first baby who is not in the breech position is delivered, the baby who is presented in the breech position may turn itself around, if this does not happen another procedure may performed called the breech extraction. The breech extraction is the procedure that involves the obstetrician grabbing the second twin’s feet and pulling him/her into the birth canal. This will help with delivering the second twin vaginally.[29] However, if the second twin is larger than the first, complications with delivering the second twin vaginally may arise and a cesarean section should be performed. At times, the first twin (the twin closest to the birth canal) can be in the breech position with the second twin being in the cephalic position (vertical). When this occurs, risks of complications are higher than normal. In particular, a serious complication known as Locked twins. This is when both babies interlock their chins during labour. When this happens a cesarean section should be performed immediately.

    Turning the baby[edit]

    Turning the baby, technically known as external cephalic version (ECV), is when the baby is turned by gently pressing the mother’s abdomen to push the baby from a bottom first position, to a head first position.[27] ECV does not always work, but it does improve the mother’s chances of giving birth to her baby vaginally and avoiding a cesarean section. The World Health Organisation recommends that women should have a planned cesarean section only if an ECV has been tried and did not work.[2]

    Women who have an ECV when they are 36–40 weeks pregnant are more likely to have a vaginal delivery and less likely to have a cesarean section than those who do not have an ECV.[20] Turning the baby before this time makes a head first birth more likely but ECV before the due date can increase the risk of early or premature birth which can cause problems to the baby.[27]

    There are treatments that can be used which might affect the success of an ECV. Drugs called beta-stimulant tocolytics help the woman’s muscles to relax so that the pressure during the ECV does not have to be so great. Giving the woman these drugs before the ECV improves the chances of her having a vaginal delivery because the baby is more likely to turn and stay head down.[30] Other treatments such as using sound, pain relief drugs such as epidural, increasing the fluid around the baby and increasing the amount of fluids to the woman before the ECV could all effect its success but there is not enough research to make this clear.[31]

    Turning techniques mothers can do at home are referred to Spontaneous Cephalic Version (SCV), this is when the baby can turn without any medical assistance.[32] Some of these techniques include; a knee to chest position, the breech tilt and moxibustion, these can be performed after the mother is 34 weeks pregnant. Although there is not a lot of evidence to support how well these techniques work, it has worked for some mothers.[32]

    People born breech[edit]

    • Chesa Boudin[33]
    • Jordan Brady[34]
    • Becky Garrison[35]
    • Billy Joel[36]
    • Jerry Lee Lewis[37]
    • Bret Michaels[38]
    • Nero[39]
    • Tatum O’Neal[40]
    • David Shields[41]
    • Frank Sinatra[42]
    • Wilhelm II, German Emperor[43]
    • Pedro Zamora[44]
    • Frank Zappa[45]

    See also[edit]

    • Asynclitic birth, another abnormal birth position


  • ^ a b c d e f g Hofmeyr, GJ; Hannah, M; Lawrie, TA (21 July 2015). “Planned caesarean section for term breech delivery”. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 7: CD000166. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000166.pub2. PMID 26196961. 
  • ^ a b c Conde-Agudelo, A. “Planned caesarean section for term breech delivery: RHL commentary (last revised: 8 September 2003)”. The WHO Reproductive Health Library. Geneva: World Health Organization. Retrieved 19 February 2016. 
  • ^ Miller EC, Kouam L (1981). “Frequency of breech presentation during pregnancy and on full term”. Zentralbl Gynakol. 103: 105–109. 
  • ^ Hill L (2008). “Prevalence of Breech Presentation by Gestational Age”. American Journal of Perinatology. 7: 92–93. doi:10.1055/s-2007-999455. PMID 2403797. 
  • ^ Hughey MJ (1985). “Fetal position during pregnancy”. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 153: 885–886. doi:10.1016/s0002-9378(85)80276-3. 
  • ^ Sørensen, T; Hasch, E; Lange, AP (1979). “Fetal presentation during pregnancy”. Lancet. 2: 477. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(79)91536-8. 
  • ^ Tadmor OP, Rabinowitz R, Alon L, Mostoslavky V, Aboulafia Y. Can breech presentation at birth be predicted from ultrasound examination during the second or third trimester?” Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1994;46:11–14.
  • ^ Boos, R; Hendrik, HJ; Schmidt, W (1987). “Behavior of fetal position in the second half of pregnancy in labor with breech and vertex presentations”. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 47: 341–345. 
  • ^ Witkop, CT; Zhang, J; Sun, W; Troendle, J (2008). “Natural history of fetal position during pregnancy and risk of nonvertex delivery”. Obstet Gynecol. 111: 875–880. doi:10.1097/aog.0b013e318168576d. PMID 18378746. 
  • ^ Sekulić S, Zarkov M, Slankamenac P, Bozić K, Vejnović T, Novakov-Mikić A (2009). “Decreased expression of the righting reflex and locomotor movements in breech-presenting newborns in the first days of life”. Early Hum Dev. 85: 263–6. doi:10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2008.11.001. 
  • ^ Braun FH, Jones KL, Smith DW (1975). “Breech presentation as an indicator of fetal abnormality”. J Pediatr. 86: 419–21. doi:10.1016/s0022-3476(75)80977-2. 
  • ^ Sekulić SR, Mikov A, Petrović DS (2010). “Probability of breech presentation and its significance”. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 23 (10): 1160–4. doi:10.3109/14767051003677996. 
  • ^ Vendittelli, F., Rivière, O., Crenn-Hébert, C., Rozan, M. A., Maria, B., Jacquetin, B. (May 2008) “Is a breech presentation at term more frequent in women with a history of cesarean delivery?” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 198 (5): 521.e1–6. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2007.11.009. PMID 18241817
  • ^ Sekulić SR, Petrović DS, Runić R, Williams M, Vejnović TR. Does a probability of breech presentation of more than 50% exist among diseases and medical conditions? Twin Res Hum Genet. 2007; 10:649-54.
  • ^ Tidy, C. “Breech Presentations (last revised 11/03/2013)”. Retrieved 2 March 2016. 
  • ^ a b Konar, Hiralal (2014). Dc dutta’s textbook of obstetrics (7th ed.). [S.l.]: Mcgraw-Hill. p. 376. ISBN 978-93-5152-067-2. 
  • ^ a b c d e f g Payne, J. “Prolapsed Cord. Pregnancy complications from prolapsed cord”. Patient info. Retrieved 22 April 2016. 
  • ^ “Umbilical Cord Prolapse” (PDF). Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. November 2014. Retrieved 22 April 2016. 
  • ^ Tidy, C. “Breech Presentations”. Patient. Retrieved 22 April 2016. 
  • ^ a b Hofmeyr, GJ; Kulier, R; West, HM (21 July 2015). “Expedited versus conservative approaches for vaginal delivery in breech presentation”. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 7: CD000082. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000082.pub3. PMID 26197303. 
  • ^ Deborah Bilder, MD, Judith Pinborough-Zimmerman, PhD, Judith Miller, PhD and William McMahon, MD. “Prenatal, Perinatal, and Neonatal Factors Associated With Autism Spectrum Disorders.” Pediatrics 123(5), May 2009, pp. 1293–1300
  • ^ a b c d e f Kotaska, A; Menticoglou, S; Gagnon, R; Farine, D; Basso, M; Bos, H; Delisle, MF; Grabowska, K; Hudon, L; Mundle, W; Murphy-Kaulbeck, L; Ouellet, A; Pressey, T; Roggensack, A; Maternal Fetal Medicine, Committee; Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of, Canada (June 2009). “Vaginal delivery of breech presentation”. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada. 31 (6): 557–66, 567–78. PMID 19646324. 
  • ^ Datta, Sanjay (2004-01-09). Anesthetic and Obstetric Management of High-Risk Pregnancy. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 9780387004433. 
  • ^ Kotaska A, Menticoglou S,Farine D, et al. “Vaginal delivery of breech presentation” J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2009 Jun;31(6):557-66, 567-78. (Ref is for entire section)
  • ^ “First stage”. StratOG. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. 2016. Retrieved 22 April 2016. 
  • ^ McClain, L (2016). “Will my newborn be different? – Better Birth Blog”. Better Birth Blog. Retrieved 18 March 2016. 
  • ^ a b c Hutton, EK; Hofmeyr, GJ; Dowswell, T (29 July 2015). “External cephalic version for breech presentation before term”. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 7: CD000084. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000084.pub3. PMID 26222245. 
  • ^ “Twin Breech”. 
  • ^ a b “Delivery of Breech Second Twin”. Healthline. Retrieved 2016-05-17. 
  • ^ Cluver, C; Gyte, GM; Sinclair, M; Dowswell, T; Hofmeyr, GJ (9 February 2015). “Interventions for helping to turn term breech babies to head first presentation when using external cephalic version”. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2: CD000184. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000184.pub4. PMC 4171393 . PMID 25674710. 
  • ^ Cluver, C; Gyte, GM; Sinclair, M; Dowswell, T; Hofmeyr, GJ (9 February 2015). “Interventions for helping to turn term breech babies to head first presentation when using external cephalic version”. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2: CD000184. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000184.pub4. PMC 4171393 . PMID 25674710. 
  • ^ a b “How can I turn my breech baby naturally?”. BabyCentre. Retrieved 2016-05-16. 
  • ^ Wilgoren, Jodi (9 December 2002). “From a Radical Background, A Rhodes Scholar Emerges”. New York Times. Retrieved 3 February 2015. 
  • ^ “‘I Am Comic’ Director Jordan Brady on Spit Takes and the Downside of Supportive Audiences”. Interview. The Humor Code. Retrieved 2 February 2015. 
  • ^ Garrison, Becky (1 Jan 2008). The New Atheist Crusaders and Their Unholy Grail: The Misguided Quest to Destroy Your Faith. Thomas Nelson Inc. p. 133. 
  • ^ Andrew Goldman (26 May 2013). “Billy Joel on not working, not giving up drinking and not caring what Elton John says about any of it”. New York Times Magazine. p. 34. Retrieved 2 February 2015.  Joel attributes the need for double hip replacement surgery to “probably being born with dysplasia.” He explains that he was a breech baby and that forceps may have displaced his hips.
  • ^ McKennain, Mike (26 February 2010). “Great balls of wax”. Retrieved 3 February 2015.  Allegedly said, “I was born feet first, and I’ve been jumpin’ ever since.”
  • ^ Ellis, Christine (15 April 2012). “Music for your soul”. His website. Bret Michaels. Retrieved 3 February 2015. 
  • ^ Geffcken, Katherine A.; Dickison, Sheila Kathryn; Hallett, Judith P. (2000). Rome and Her Monuments: Essays on the City and Literature of Rome in Honor of Katherine A. Geffcken. Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers. p. 496. 
  • ^ O’Neal, Tatum (4 Oct 2005). A Paper Life. HarperCollins. p. 14. 
  • ^ Shields, David (2009). The Thing about Life Is That One Day You’ll Be Dead. Random House LLC. p. 4. 
  • ^ Santopietro, Tom (10 Nov 2009). Sinatra in Hollywood. Macmillan. p. 12. 
  • ^ Putnam, William L. (2001). The Kaiser’s merchant ships in World War I. p. 33. 
  • ^ Winick, Judd (2000). Pedro and Me: Friendship, Loss, and What I Learned. Henry Holt & Co. pp. 33-36.
  • ^ Miles, Barry (2004). Zappa. Grove Press. p. 5. 
  • External links[edit]

    • Breech birth controversies in Great Britain
    • GLOWM video demonstrating vaginal breech delivery techniques

    Maternal care related to the
    fetus and amniotic cavity

    • amniotic fluid
      • Oligohydramnios
      • Polyhydramnios
    • Braxton Hicks contractions
    • chorion / amnion
      • Amniotic band syndrome
      • Chorioamnionitis
      • Chorionic hematoma
      • Monoamniotic twins
      • Premature rupture of membranes
    • Obstetrical bleeding
      • Antepartum
    • placenta
      • Circumvallate placenta
      • Monochorionic twins
      • Placenta accreta
      • Placenta praevia
      • Placental abruption
      • Twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome


    • Amniotic fluid embolism
    • Cephalopelvic disproportion
    • Dystocia
      • Shoulder dystocia
    • Fetal distress
    • Locked twins
    • Obstetrical bleeding
      • Postpartum
    • Pain management during childbirth
    • placenta
      • Placenta accreta
    • Preterm birth
    • Postmature birth
    • Umbilical cord prolapse
    • Uterine inversion
    • Uterine rupture
    • Vasa praevia


    • Breastfeeding difficulties
      • Low milk supply
      • Cracked nipples
    • Breast engorgement
    • Childbirth-related posttraumatic stress disorder
    • Diastasis symphysis pubis
    • Postpartum bleeding
    • Peripartum cardiomyopathy
    • Postpartum depression
    • Postpartum thyroiditis
    • Puerperal fever
    • Puerperal mastitis


    • Concomitant conditions
      • Diabetes mellitus
      • Systemic lupus erythematosus
      • Thyroid disorders
    • Maternal death
    • Sexual activity during pregnancy



    Obstetric history

    • Gravidity
    • Parity
    • TPAL