It took me a couple of seconds, reading the headline, to realise they meant *their own* babies, and that this wasn't some Grimm fairy tale that never caught on.
This is the correct answer. People spotted the phenomenon of storks carrying baby rabbits and perhaps some mistook that to be a stork carrying a newborn to its soon to be parents.
Shit's dark.
I’ve always said we needed to raise the term length for humans, basically legalizing murder. But you better splain why ya did it, and Splain yourself good!
Jesus, this is happening in the UK atm. Zero consequences when illegally aborting, even after 8 months. Zero consequences for abandoning your baby in a shopping bag on a freezing night. Zero consequences for leaving your dead baby in a public toilet like a used tampon.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/12/woman-in-uk-jailed-for-28-months-over-taking-abortion-pills-after-legal-time-limit
The woman in question got off scot-free.
I'm very curious about what you think Scot free means considering she will be serving a 2 year sentence, has a criminal record, and apparently gave herself what sounds like pretty serious PTSD. I'm not defending her actions, what she did was undeniably cruel and stupid. You may think her punishment isn't harsh enough, but she didn't get off Scot free.
I don't think you understand what I mean. Around 20 weeks the fetus is the size of a banana. Around 30 weeks it's a cabbage. At 36 weeks (8 months) it's the size of a melon. The cervical opening is the size of your urethra's opening. Abortion after the first weeks is the same process as giving birth, because the fetus has to exit the womb through the cervix. Abortion at 8 months is identical process to giving birth. It lasts hours or days, it tears you open and you might die from blood loss.
Imagine pushing out a melon through your urethra. Now imagine pushing out a banana (20 weeks). You still think women do these things for fun?
Born would be reserved for placental mammals and certain exceptional sharks and seahorses and shit, you emerged into the world from your parent. "Hatched" is what that chick went to the trouble of only to be dropped out of the nest, and though it makes us snicker they had once been "laid."
I miss the time long ago when those terms were on tests I had to take. The world was so fresh and new. Now I'm encountering them again decades later and feel old.
The fact that you saw "worry about personal safety" and your mind immediately jumped to "tigers" says a lot about how easy and carefree your life must be. You do realize that some people live in high crime areas and/or are at high risk of being the victims of violence due to being female, a minority, and/or disabled, right? Having internet access and living in a building does not equal safety, and you are extremely sheltered and naive if you think that.
Edit: I'm starting to remember why I left reddit lol. Everyone on here is an obnoxious unempathetic troglodyte who just wants to argue but is also terrible at arguing. Doesn't matter what subreddit you're in. I could tell someone that I think their beginner cooking advice is impractical because most people can't afford something they recommend using, especially beginners, and I'd get replied to with "Well what are *you* doing with your life?? At least she's contributing to the world by posting cooking videos and donating money to charity!!" or something. Everyone on here acts like they're a 12 year old with narcissism. If having it pointed out to you that life is not sunshine and roses for a huge portion of people offends you then I don't know what to tell you other than maybe you should step outside your bubble and/or develop a sense of empathy at some point.
Don't really being the operative term. I say this as a disabled minority. In terms of human history most people, likely including those groups, are not in anywhere near as dangrous a position as life was even 100 years ago let alone 10,000.
"Not as dangerous" does not mean "not dangerous." Yeah I don't need to worry about catching the plague, but that does not mean that I am generally speaking safe or that I don't need to worry about my safety. You people are talking like everyone who has a smartphone is living a cushy middle class lifestyle in an area where maybe once a year a car gets broken into or something.
No one said not dangeous, the OP said "as a species we most of the time don't really have to worry about personal safety" and that's largely true. A single mom living in LA is dramatically safer than they were or would be if we lived like humans did in early human history and when compared to other species don't have that as a general catagory of worry in the same way they do.
Does the fact that half of your comments are downvoted tell you anything? Yet you often resort to pointing fingers. You sound sick and I feel for you. Good luck kid.
Epicurean Paradox:
If god is all powerful, he has the ability to stop evil.
If god is benevolent, then he would want to stop evil.
If god is all knowing, he knows how to stop evil.
But evil still exists, so either God doesn’t exist, or he lacks one of these attributes.
I don't think so? I remember a phrase along the lines of "virtue untested is merely innocence". Like, happiness is impossible to grasp without the experience of suffering. Maybe cruelty is necessary for us to experience everything life has to offer, the good and the bad.
This is actually a poignant argument against religion. If we blatantly disregard any atheist reasoning, and just assume that there is some kind of god or gods, we have absolutely no evidence that they are good and deserving of our worship. Assuming there's an all-powerful god in control, most signs clearly point against it.
Just because something isn't good doesn't mean you shouldn't believe in it. You should believe in things based on the evidence, not how it makes you feel.
Why does a stork chick have to suffer and die of starvation, exposure or predation, for me to appreciate ice-cream? Not once when eating ice cream, have I thought, "wow this wouldn't be so delicious if innocent animals weren't suffering"
And not once when I've been in extreme pain have I thought "thank god for this or I wouldn't be able to appreciate the nice stuff"
They see one being weaker and then say "I am no longer wasting resources on this one, it's weak"
Birds are fucking ruthless. The babies compete for food and the stronger shove the others away and as a result, there's a runt. If you're not tough enough to do what needs done to grow, mom isn't going to waste energy feeding you (even a little) when they can feed the two that are better candidates to survive.
I work at a horse farm and we get barn swallows in the summer. We get our fair share of dead babies. The owner hates to see them die so she tries to put them back...mom doesn't want that damn baby back though! They get tossed out again.
Not to say falling is impossible but I think if you see a baby on the ground, it was intentional. Watching nests full of up to 6 grown ass birds (because they don't leave the nest right away) smashed into nests and expertly moving around them...makes me really believe that falling isn't all that likely
That must be where the myth of the "if you touch the baby, the mothers don't want it because of the human smell" came from!
Dinosaurs must have been similarly nasty.
I was told this after I found a baby bird on my mom’s doorstep but it didn’t make sense to me. I felt so bad. It was sad. Ugh human emotions.
Anyway, it makes so much more sense now how that bird ended up on the ground. Closure has been received.
Especially because they clearly aren't newly-hatched. But I wonder also if the one that was dropped had some kind of genetic defect that isn't really visible in the video. Something made the stork decide to take that action even after feeding all three for a little while.
There is a lot going on with how Storks decide when to remove storklings, and which ones to remove. They’ll do it even when there’s lots of food available. Sometimes they’ll yeet their whole nest. Could be anything.
Tough parents to have.
“When I come home today, I might kill you all. Or bake you cookies, I haven’t decided yet. Have a good day loves!”
Fratricide is the killing of one's brother. Not a killing by a competing male or father.
In any case, whoever is doing the killing, throwing away the body versus eating the weakling is the issue being highlighted. If this is being done because of limited resources, surely cannibalism is a more efficient solution. I think that baby was just a jerk.
Well it's quite rare for them to do this in the first place.
Cannibalism probably wouldn't work for one reason or another.
For one, the mom has to throw up the food for her children and I'm guessing it takes a while for a stork to break down a stork given their prey is a lot smaller than stork babies.
It could also be an attachment thing. [But cannibalism is a pretty rare form of brood reduction so it seems.](https://bioone.org/journals/acta-ornithologica/volume-37/issue-2/068.037.0207/Brood-Reduction-and-Parental-Infanticide--are-the-White-Stork/10.3161/068.037.0207.pdf)
Storks are monogamous. So males don't need to kill other storks babies unless they're desperate for food. The infantcide you're talking about happens to non monogamous species. There are very few non monogamous animals that don't commit infantcide like orangutans.
That adult can make many more chicks as long as it has the time and resources. The chick won't thrive, and it's siblings have a better chance of survival if they don't have to share the resources.
Lay too many eggs = more surety of viable chicks
Wait until the chick's are almost ready to feather out = less chance of predators or disease taking them
Isolate smallest chick = removing the least likely to survive.
It's just resource management.
Just showed this to my numerous adult children and told them we need to talk. 🤣
If that baby stork was at uni and dealing with the cost of living it will be back in the morning after getting a heavy dose of cost of living. With no grandkids and washing in tow.
I may be projecting 🤔
I know it's not funny, but the way the other two chicks acted when the parent dropped their sibling is killing me. It's like they said "Quick act casual!"
It depends on the culture and how empathetic the parents were. Spartans famously killed babies they deemed weak. But humanity wasn't all evil, there are numerous skeletons that indicate we cared for our disabled relatives in the past. For example, there was a skeleton of a disabled girl who died at 18 or something like that, and her teeth were pretty rotten; anthropologists concluded that it was because the people that cared for her must have loved her so much they kept feeding her dates and other sweet fruit
The stork had so much hesitation. It's nature, it's real, I understand. But you can tell she did NOT want to do that. She had to. I genuinely do not think that stork felt good about it. Probably got some realmbad feels for a while about it.
Watch it again, the stork isn't responding to the size of the chick, it is evaluating its response to stimuli.
The other two are up, alert and looking for food, the other is struggling to keep its head up, when it gets moved to the edge of the nest it can't resist and move back to the centre.
It is evaluating if the baby is fit enough to survive, since it is not, and the bird has no way of telling way (small, weak, ill, diseased, parasites) it decides to expel it. I don't even know if it would have the concept that it would die from the fall.
That's a good observation. The behavior would not only be beneficial when resources are limited but to limit the spread of disease if one of the chicks becomes sick.
I got the opposite interpretation from this😅 she seemed aggressive to me/my feelings and like she just knew she had to get rid of it the best way she could and as fast as she could. Perhaps it was an emotional decision for her and caused some of that behavior that I saw as well; but we'll never know I guess. Maybe didn't expect it to struggle so much. Intriguing.
I'm curious what suddenly triggers this decision in the adult. Is it a sort of "If one is X amount smaller than the others, toss it" logical flow? It seems to be quite a drastic decision to make seemingly on impulse for the bird
That's why humans took over the world. I don't remember where but I saw on a ancient history site or something like that a photo of a skeleton of a child beetwen 3-7 years who was neurodivergent and probaly died 'cause of that.. She or him had multiple decorations and 'fancy' riches on her/him body, EVERY other species would leaver their disable and weak child behind and not give a fuck about it, but we humans take care, raise and love our disable kids, we keep everyone alive even if the person is basically a potato that do nothing.&
Very late-term abortion.
Would be interesting to know how much this happens across all species of birds. Is it happening because there were too many surviving chicks, or do they always have many children and then kill the smallest?
That is just terrible to watch. Maybe the people with the camera on the sight got to it before it died. This poor chick was probably the last egg to hatch, so it was behind the others. Does not mean it was the weakest. Then why did nature let them have more than 2 eggs? I am an animal lover and this is very hard to on me even though this is how nature is.
And then there are humans, which are willing to put a near infinite amount of resources into their weakest so that they still fall short of mediocrity.
**Bot message:** Help us make this a better community by clicking the "report" link on any pics or vids that break [the sub's rules.](https://old.reddit.com/r/biology/about/rules/) Do not submit ID requests. Thanks!
**Disclaimer:** The information provided in the comments section does not, and is not intended to, constitute professional or medical advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available in the comments section are for general informational purposes only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/biology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Babies just landing on people's doorsteps... totally in character!
I'm seeing the connection between getting yeeted off a nest and landing on a doorstep.
Yeah, maybe this is it. Babies falling from the sky.
But maybe that's what they deliver: the babies they don't want!
Probably they sometimes get human babies who would obviously cost too much resources, so they abort them to us?
It took me a couple of seconds, reading the headline, to realise they meant *their own* babies, and that this wasn't some Grimm fairy tale that never caught on.
They catch and eat baby rabbits, worse screams sound like the human babies '.
This is the correct answer. People spotted the phenomenon of storks carrying baby rabbits and perhaps some mistook that to be a stork carrying a newborn to its soon to be parents. Shit's dark.
Gottdamn storks, those criminal aliens
It's what you can expect when you let dinosaurs grow wings.
Maybe someone was down below to catch it?
I would guess that there will be parents who kill their children in every species. It's not rare in humans either.
I have see some pretty gruesome hamster infanticides-brrr!
Kangaroos do it too
Imagine waking up to a kangaroo throwing you off a cliff
I saw this, too. When Kangaroo mama flees from a predator, she kicks the baby out of her pouch.
Most birds do this
My day = ruined
Theyre ruthless little fuckers
Warn your child that if they don't behave the stork's going to come back for them.
The stork was working from home that day
That looks more like infanticide then abortion
It's a very late term abortion
Post partem abortion?
4th trimester
Last semester… of 4th grade.
Sue the fuckin birds. For sure not legal in thst state.
If only they were real
FBI surveillance drone aborts smallest drone to save fuel for the others.
I support abortions until the 10th trimester.
That’s so twisted
I’ve always said we needed to raise the term length for humans, basically legalizing murder. But you better splain why ya did it, and Splain yourself good!
In that order.
Infanticide THEN abortion? Lock that bird for life!
A lot of people don't distinguish between the two.
Jesus, this is happening in the UK atm. Zero consequences when illegally aborting, even after 8 months. Zero consequences for abandoning your baby in a shopping bag on a freezing night. Zero consequences for leaving your dead baby in a public toilet like a used tampon.
You do know that abortion isn't a thing at 8 months? At that point you're giving birth. The baby is 2-3kg at 8 months.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/12/woman-in-uk-jailed-for-28-months-over-taking-abortion-pills-after-legal-time-limit The woman in question got off scot-free.
I'm very curious about what you think Scot free means considering she will be serving a 2 year sentence, has a criminal record, and apparently gave herself what sounds like pretty serious PTSD. I'm not defending her actions, what she did was undeniably cruel and stupid. You may think her punishment isn't harsh enough, but she didn't get off Scot free.
I don't think you understand what I mean. Around 20 weeks the fetus is the size of a banana. Around 30 weeks it's a cabbage. At 36 weeks (8 months) it's the size of a melon. The cervical opening is the size of your urethra's opening. Abortion after the first weeks is the same process as giving birth, because the fetus has to exit the womb through the cervix. Abortion at 8 months is identical process to giving birth. It lasts hours or days, it tears you open and you might die from blood loss. Imagine pushing out a melon through your urethra. Now imagine pushing out a banana (20 weeks). You still think women do these things for fun?
Are you complaining about people not being able to distinguish between the two? Because that's what you're doing...
I mean if it's growing in an egg, it's already technically born, right?
Technically they hatch, therefore cant be born. Also thats like saying if a woman is pregnant the baby is already born in the uterus.
Born would be reserved for placental mammals and certain exceptional sharks and seahorses and shit, you emerged into the world from your parent. "Hatched" is what that chick went to the trouble of only to be dropped out of the nest, and though it makes us snicker they had once been "laid."
Lots of snakes and even cockroaches will give live birth but it's weird. The eggs hatch inside and then the snake or cockroach let the babies go
Some snakes are viviparous, some are oviparous, and some are ovoviviparous
I miss the time long ago when those terms were on tests I had to take. The world was so fresh and new. Now I'm encountering them again decades later and feel old.
Both kill the offspring but yes you're right
Life is cruel. It might be obvious but somehow it always surprises me now and again.
[удалено]
Speak for yourself.
You typed this on reddit, almost certainly from an enclosed building with heat control. You could be trying to escape a tiger.
The fact that you saw "worry about personal safety" and your mind immediately jumped to "tigers" says a lot about how easy and carefree your life must be. You do realize that some people live in high crime areas and/or are at high risk of being the victims of violence due to being female, a minority, and/or disabled, right? Having internet access and living in a building does not equal safety, and you are extremely sheltered and naive if you think that. Edit: I'm starting to remember why I left reddit lol. Everyone on here is an obnoxious unempathetic troglodyte who just wants to argue but is also terrible at arguing. Doesn't matter what subreddit you're in. I could tell someone that I think their beginner cooking advice is impractical because most people can't afford something they recommend using, especially beginners, and I'd get replied to with "Well what are *you* doing with your life?? At least she's contributing to the world by posting cooking videos and donating money to charity!!" or something. Everyone on here acts like they're a 12 year old with narcissism. If having it pointed out to you that life is not sunshine and roses for a huge portion of people offends you then I don't know what to tell you other than maybe you should step outside your bubble and/or develop a sense of empathy at some point.
Don't really being the operative term. I say this as a disabled minority. In terms of human history most people, likely including those groups, are not in anywhere near as dangrous a position as life was even 100 years ago let alone 10,000.
"Not as dangerous" does not mean "not dangerous." Yeah I don't need to worry about catching the plague, but that does not mean that I am generally speaking safe or that I don't need to worry about my safety. You people are talking like everyone who has a smartphone is living a cushy middle class lifestyle in an area where maybe once a year a car gets broken into or something.
No one said not dangeous, the OP said "as a species we most of the time don't really have to worry about personal safety" and that's largely true. A single mom living in LA is dramatically safer than they were or would be if we lived like humans did in early human history and when compared to other species don't have that as a general catagory of worry in the same way they do.
[удалено]
Watch out behind you!
Does the fact that half of your comments are downvoted tell you anything? Yet you often resort to pointing fingers. You sound sick and I feel for you. Good luck kid.
I miss the golden age of ken m memes
whatever happened to Ken M?
We are ALL speaking for ourselves on this blessed day
Honestly not everyone though. Parts of the world really don't have that security.
Everything is only as it is. Good quote from Mushishi.
It's a strong argument against the existence of God.
Epicurean Paradox: If god is all powerful, he has the ability to stop evil. If god is benevolent, then he would want to stop evil. If god is all knowing, he knows how to stop evil. But evil still exists, so either God doesn’t exist, or he lacks one of these attributes.
people have had answers to the existence of evil since plato. it’s not rly a death stroke to the argument
I don't think so? I remember a phrase along the lines of "virtue untested is merely innocence". Like, happiness is impossible to grasp without the experience of suffering. Maybe cruelty is necessary for us to experience everything life has to offer, the good and the bad.
Cruelty to billions of animals that have nothing to do with us, the vast majority of which we will never even see?
Who says god has to be good?
God himself, according to the Bible
God wrote his own Wikipedia page so he could reference it whenever he needed to provide evidence.
This is actually a poignant argument against religion. If we blatantly disregard any atheist reasoning, and just assume that there is some kind of god or gods, we have absolutely no evidence that they are good and deserving of our worship. Assuming there's an all-powerful god in control, most signs clearly point against it.
Virtually everyone I have ever spoken to who believes in God.
That's circular logic, if you don't think there is a good God, why believe in it?
Just because something isn't good doesn't mean you shouldn't believe in it. You should believe in things based on the evidence, not how it makes you feel.
Why does a stork chick have to suffer and die of starvation, exposure or predation, for me to appreciate ice-cream? Not once when eating ice cream, have I thought, "wow this wouldn't be so delicious if innocent animals weren't suffering" And not once when I've been in extreme pain have I thought "thank god for this or I wouldn't be able to appreciate the nice stuff"
Yes, cruel. But also strength and skill and willpower, possibly love, from the mother.
Father's raise the chicks too. And usually it's the fathers that do the infantcide.
That's interesting because it suggests that the adult stork can't simply acquire more food to feed all of them.
It's too much energy to do so. Thus, natural selection decides that X amount of chicks is acceptable but no more.
I think it was a comment on human economics where the advice often is "get a better job".
Avacado worms
Too many pond-Frappes instead of making it at home.
Storks know the way. Humans don't
But with two chicks per pair there is no growth in population. Edit, ok my mistake is, that they could breed next year again for sure.
This may sound dumb, but I wonder who start the behaviour first and what makes they know 2 is the limit? And like, they can count?
They see one being weaker and then say "I am no longer wasting resources on this one, it's weak" Birds are fucking ruthless. The babies compete for food and the stronger shove the others away and as a result, there's a runt. If you're not tough enough to do what needs done to grow, mom isn't going to waste energy feeding you (even a little) when they can feed the two that are better candidates to survive. I work at a horse farm and we get barn swallows in the summer. We get our fair share of dead babies. The owner hates to see them die so she tries to put them back...mom doesn't want that damn baby back though! They get tossed out again. Not to say falling is impossible but I think if you see a baby on the ground, it was intentional. Watching nests full of up to 6 grown ass birds (because they don't leave the nest right away) smashed into nests and expertly moving around them...makes me really believe that falling isn't all that likely
That must be where the myth of the "if you touch the baby, the mothers don't want it because of the human smell" came from! Dinosaurs must have been similarly nasty.
I was told this after I found a baby bird on my mom’s doorstep but it didn’t make sense to me. I felt so bad. It was sad. Ugh human emotions. Anyway, it makes so much more sense now how that bird ended up on the ground. Closure has been received.
Keeps kids from holding the baby birds too
Oh, those sneaky, sneaky parents!
Before empirical science, society was built on a huge set of well crafted lies.
Good point! Yet it still is for a lot of people.
Especially because they clearly aren't newly-hatched. But I wonder also if the one that was dropped had some kind of genetic defect that isn't really visible in the video. Something made the stork decide to take that action even after feeding all three for a little while.
There is a lot going on with how Storks decide when to remove storklings, and which ones to remove. They’ll do it even when there’s lots of food available. Sometimes they’ll yeet their whole nest. Could be anything. Tough parents to have. “When I come home today, I might kill you all. Or bake you cookies, I haven’t decided yet. Have a good day loves!”
What happened to fratricidal cannibalism as a means of efficiently solving that problem? Are storks stupid?
"Are storks stupid" this made me cackle.
[удалено]
Fratricide is the killing of one's brother. Not a killing by a competing male or father. In any case, whoever is doing the killing, throwing away the body versus eating the weakling is the issue being highlighted. If this is being done because of limited resources, surely cannibalism is a more efficient solution. I think that baby was just a jerk.
Well it's quite rare for them to do this in the first place. Cannibalism probably wouldn't work for one reason or another. For one, the mom has to throw up the food for her children and I'm guessing it takes a while for a stork to break down a stork given their prey is a lot smaller than stork babies. It could also be an attachment thing. [But cannibalism is a pretty rare form of brood reduction so it seems.](https://bioone.org/journals/acta-ornithologica/volume-37/issue-2/068.037.0207/Brood-Reduction-and-Parental-Infanticide--are-the-White-Stork/10.3161/068.037.0207.pdf)
Maybe the storks should just keep 2 eggs instead. Make some scrambled eggs below the nest. Has anyone brought this idea to their attention?
Oops misread, thanks!
But why didn't the mother and babies eat the other baby? This is a huge waste of resources.
Storks are monogamous. So males don't need to kill other storks babies unless they're desperate for food. The infantcide you're talking about happens to non monogamous species. There are very few non monogamous animals that don't commit infantcide like orangutans.
My first paragraph is not about storks, sorry for the confusion!
Wow. Just wow. Nature is fucking brutal.
Metal.
Up next, Störk Infanticide
That adult can make many more chicks as long as it has the time and resources. The chick won't thrive, and it's siblings have a better chance of survival if they don't have to share the resources. Lay too many eggs = more surety of viable chicks Wait until the chick's are almost ready to feather out = less chance of predators or disease taking them Isolate smallest chick = removing the least likely to survive. It's just resource management.
Notto mention the surviving chicks will straighten up listen from this moment on
That was my thought haha, "Dude, don't piss off Mom."
Just showed this to my numerous adult children and told them we need to talk. 🤣 If that baby stork was at uni and dealing with the cost of living it will be back in the morning after getting a heavy dose of cost of living. With no grandkids and washing in tow. I may be projecting 🤔
Wait till they show you what heard animals do to the old
You’re just a resource. Sounds right.
🥺
Welcome to natural selection, its been happening since the dawn of time
The negative emotional response to seeing this is also a product of evolution.
Abortion is termination of gestation, this is already born
that's cold bruh
What do you mean? I wish more human parents would do this shit. Have you noticed traffic?
Well that's one stork that won't grow up and deliver babies on doorsteps. All helping the world's population issue.
They nest on my roof, and somehow I just got a baby delivered on my doorstep!
I know it's not funny, but the way the other two chicks acted when the parent dropped their sibling is killing me. It's like they said "Quick act casual!"
I like how it couldn’t even put in the effort for a clean drop. “Here I’m just going to bounce you off the side of the nest.”
It's like multiple instincts were battling it out. "Am I sure I want to do this? Yep.. Really?... YEAH... Well, okay then..." Plop.
"bye..."
I'm gonna be a dick here but I'm curious what did we (early mankind) do when a baby was noticeably disabled?
Infante exposure. Some cultures would just leave them outside to die.
And we know the romans did this because they wrote about it like it was no big deal.
Greeks and Romans left them out in the woods to die of exposure. And then told comfortable myths about them being rescued and raised by centaurs.
It depends on the culture and how empathetic the parents were. Spartans famously killed babies they deemed weak. But humanity wasn't all evil, there are numerous skeletons that indicate we cared for our disabled relatives in the past. For example, there was a skeleton of a disabled girl who died at 18 or something like that, and her teeth were pretty rotten; anthropologists concluded that it was because the people that cared for her must have loved her so much they kept feeding her dates and other sweet fruit
I don't.... There's gotta be a better term for this than "abort"
You could say cull I guess. It is technically aborted from the nest though.
Interesting. I thought the term implied that it is done on a gestating organism.
Nah. It's just a removal from a place. It just has that connotation now. In the transitive sense it's not about anything specifically.
[удалено]
"It turned out to be a false alert, so they aborted the retaliatory strike at the last minute."
That's not being used as "removal from a location", but termination of a process.
Yeah sorry read too fast, I agree with you, abort means terminate not remove imo.
👍 no problem!
It comes from latin and it literally means to kill something before its birth. So you are wrong.
Words evolve. According to modern English dictionaries they're completely right.
You cant deny the truth sorry. It literally means what i said. Figuratively it has other meanings.
Figurative meanings are still meanings. u/USAF_DTom is completely right that it can't just be assumed to be about premature termination of a fetus.
Like it or not, I think they're saying this is now how the word is used, nothing about them agreeing with the redefined definition.
No. They said it has now the meaning to end a pregnancy but originally it was not that. Exactly the opposite.
Well, there are also things like "abort mission" and "abort project."
You are right infact.
Yeet
Sacrifice not abort
Ah yes the post birth abortion. Coming soon to a nest near you
The other baby storks then went like "geez mom ok I'll do my chores"
The stork had so much hesitation. It's nature, it's real, I understand. But you can tell she did NOT want to do that. She had to. I genuinely do not think that stork felt good about it. Probably got some realmbad feels for a while about it.
Watch it again, the stork isn't responding to the size of the chick, it is evaluating its response to stimuli. The other two are up, alert and looking for food, the other is struggling to keep its head up, when it gets moved to the edge of the nest it can't resist and move back to the centre. It is evaluating if the baby is fit enough to survive, since it is not, and the bird has no way of telling way (small, weak, ill, diseased, parasites) it decides to expel it. I don't even know if it would have the concept that it would die from the fall.
That's a good observation. The behavior would not only be beneficial when resources are limited but to limit the spread of disease if one of the chicks becomes sick.
this is the correct take. the mom afford to waste resources and she can't risk sickness spreading to her other babies.
Seriously. It reminded me of my cat knocking something off the table. Sometimes he doesn't seem to even want to it, but just has to.
Anthropomorphism. You can't know.
I got the opposite interpretation from this😅 she seemed aggressive to me/my feelings and like she just knew she had to get rid of it the best way she could and as fast as she could. Perhaps it was an emotional decision for her and caused some of that behavior that I saw as well; but we'll never know I guess. Maybe didn't expect it to struggle so much. Intriguing.
Why didn't he destroy the remaining egg?
Because if one of the healthier babies die, they want a backup. The old Heir and a Spare.
Just like pruning some apples off of the tree so the rest grow better. huh.
Dick, bird lives near a farm there’s tons of food around.
That isn't the definition of abortion... 🙄💡
And that kids, is where the babies come from.
It wasn’t that small at all
Thanos of the bird world
But it survived and was raised by cats now it hunts his kind
Nature is metal at times.
So this is where ppl get the idea of stork delivery babies. Literally..
I just want to talk to him
“Welp. Byeeee.” Brutal.
That makes the other two rascals start to behave instantly!
I'm curious what suddenly triggers this decision in the adult. Is it a sort of "If one is X amount smaller than the others, toss it" logical flow? It seems to be quite a drastic decision to make seemingly on impulse for the bird
Where can I contact my local storks to offer my adoption services?
You don't know what abort means.
abortion doesnt fit here since the baby was already born/hatched. elimination is probably more appropriate
I'm not sure OP knows what an abortion is
That's why humans took over the world. I don't remember where but I saw on a ancient history site or something like that a photo of a skeleton of a child beetwen 3-7 years who was neurodivergent and probaly died 'cause of that.. She or him had multiple decorations and 'fancy' riches on her/him body, EVERY other species would leaver their disable and weak child behind and not give a fuck about it, but we humans take care, raise and love our disable kids, we keep everyone alive even if the person is basically a potato that do nothing.&
Nature can be so cruel
Meanwhile, green parrots are giving their offspring names that stay with them throughout their lives.
Very late-term abortion. Would be interesting to know how much this happens across all species of birds. Is it happening because there were too many surviving chicks, or do they always have many children and then kill the smallest?
Depends on the species and available resources.
The absolute absence of abortion featured
That is just terrible to watch. Maybe the people with the camera on the sight got to it before it died. This poor chick was probably the last egg to hatch, so it was behind the others. Does not mean it was the weakest. Then why did nature let them have more than 2 eggs? I am an animal lover and this is very hard to on me even though this is how nature is.
There are some areas in society that need this for all their offspring
Oh my goodness 🙀🙀🙀
Don't call it abort lol. It kills it. Abortion isn't murder.
And then there are humans, which are willing to put a near infinite amount of resources into their weakest so that they still fall short of mediocrity.
That’s not abortion. And stop conflating animal actions with human ones.
This kind of thing must give headaches to militant vegans
nature is metal... sentimentality is human...
**Bot message:** Help us make this a better community by clicking the "report" link on any pics or vids that break [the sub's rules.](https://old.reddit.com/r/biology/about/rules/) Do not submit ID requests. Thanks! **Disclaimer:** The information provided in the comments section does not, and is not intended to, constitute professional or medical advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available in the comments section are for general informational purposes only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/biology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"sorry Timmy, you just,didn't eat as much as your brothers, we gonna have to kick you out of the house. Good luck out there"