# Could the placenta continue to function? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 7, 2015, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-placenta-continue-to-function/736909 "2015-11-07T16:34:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2015, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-placenta-continue-to-function/736909/101 "2015-11-15T14:12:39Z")
> [@Oly](#): > > Maybe the placenta, redeployed in that capacity, could be the salvation of the human species. Prolly too far afield from the OP, but why in the world we’d want to save the human species (CP excepted), I have no idea. ---
**Author:** ![Nullpersona](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5ac83/32.png) [@Nullpersona](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nullpersona)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2015, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-placenta-continue-to-function/736909/102 "2015-11-16T01:54:50Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > **OP:** \* “Could a placenta continue to function in a proper environment, if not amputated from the infant?”\* > Is your conclusion, then, that the infant and placenta, along with the uterus, all get placed into a physiologic bath and survive as a unit? > > Because I think you now need to add Mommy onto the uterus to keep it alive so that the placenta’s “relationship with the womb remains intact.” > > As far as your personal attachment 🙂 to the placenta (which I have inferred from your tone here) I found a ray of good news for you. [This guy](http://fn.bmj.com/content/77/3/F171.full) thinks that, as a fetal organ, placental senescence is overrated and incorrectly assumed. > > So find a fresh placenta, attached to the baby and the Mom-cum-uterus, and you got yerself an unamputated placenta that should continue to function in that proper environment, as long as you can keep the triad intact! > > (Call me naive, but this is starting to sound like a reg’lar pregnancy.) I am a proponent of preserving natural pregnancy. I greatly appreciate the link, as it is not only informative, but lends credibility to my argument. > [@Oly](#): > > Maybe the Wharton’s jelly of this thread has finally seized up, but the more I think about it, the more I think you may be on to something **Nullpersona**. Barring the possibilities I parsed out as (1) in post 37, it may not be practical, or even possible, but it is something interesting, and something visionary. Because your thoughts are so often couched in what seems to be intentionally cryptic language, we’ve arrived there piecemeal, and I’m not even sure it this is where you meant to it to go. To be honest all that makes me wonder if, while you have clearly boned up some about the placenta, you may be lacking some foundational knowledge in biology. Then again, maybe you have learned and gone so far beyond that foundational knowledge that it is more a hindrance than a help to think and speak in terms of it - kinda like “The Traveler” from Star Trek TNG. I don’t know. Nevertheless, this notion of a life-long placenta-in-a-box is growing on me. (Figuratively, of course. I’m not a prototype. My placenta was amputated long ago - and, yes, I forgive those who perpetrated the deed for thinking it was a good idea at the time.) > > Does anyone remember [Biosphere 2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere2)? I went to AZ and looked at it from a distance while it was being constructed. It was - still [is](http://biosphere2.org/), it turns out - a complex of domes and multifaceted window paned structures wherein are housed different areas that represent the various environments of present day planet earth. The idea as I recall it was that the only thing entering the system would be sunlight. Other than that it was completely closed. The Grand Vision was to create a system in which humans and selected other organisms could live and, perhaps, even thrive with the only thing asked of the outside universe being an adequate input of ambient energy. The plants would consume the CO2 made by the animals and make oxygen, which would be breathed in by the animals, who would then make more CO2 for the plants. Other foodstuffs and nutrients would cycle through the inhabitants and mini climate systems in symbiotic self-perpetuity. With dome intact, humans and the other life forms along for the ride could persist insulated from any outside environment from which energy could be harvested - a harsher earth, another planet, empty space. In its day this was touted as the possible salvation of the human species, and selected other earth species, similar to the domes defended to the death by the space hippy played by Bruce Dern in the movie _Silent Running_. I’ve always thought the project pretty much petered out and had modest mixed results (you can say the same thing for _Silent Running_). But it turns out, after being motivated by this thread to look into it again, it’s still going, but with a somewhat revised focus.Nevertheless, the Grand Vision that I recall was and remains fascinating and laudable. > > Now imagine the whole Biosphere 2 facility shrunk down to the size of a box. The contents of the box, rather than trying to duplicate the various environments of present day earth, are recapitulating something more akin to primordial earth. The box contains a liquid medium in which are sloshing around photosynthetic autotrophic organisms that, like the chloroplasts in plants, take in CO2 and excrete molecular oxygen. These organisms further use the materials in the medium to cycle material into nutrients that can be absorbed and used by humans, who then secrete their waste back into the box, which then regenerates the raw materials for the autotrophs to again convert into human sustenance. The organisms in the medium could be calibrated and fine tuned by genetic engineering so as to maximize their recycling capabilities to best fit human requirements. All that is needed is a way for the human to plug into the system. What better organ to mediate this exchange than one whose natural purpose is, more or less, already to do so? The placenta is perfect. Rather then stuck in the bubble of a biosphere, these placenta bearing future humans would be free to roam. > > Maybe the placenta, redeployed in that capacity, could be the salvation of the human species. Yes. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2015, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-placenta-continue-to-function/736909/103 "2015-11-16T04:03:19Z")
[QUOTE=Nullpersona] I greatly appreciate the link, as it is not only informative, but lends credibility to my argument. [/QUOTE] Not likely, since your loopy argument (that the placenta could (and should) continue to function while attached to the infant) never had any credibility in the first place. Someone can lend you credibility but ultimately you’ve got to give it back, plus interest, which (frankly speaking) is decreasing with rapidity. ---
**Author:** ![Nullpersona](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5ac83/32.png) [@Nullpersona](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nullpersona)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2015, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-placenta-continue-to-function/736909/104 "2015-11-16T05:39:50Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Not likely, since your loopy argument (that the placenta could (and should) continue to function while attached to the infant) never had any credibility in the first place. > > Someone can lend you credibility but ultimately you’ve got to give it back, plus interest, which (frankly speaking) is decreasing with rapidity. My idea owes no debt. It is incredible. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2015, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-placenta-continue-to-function/736909/105 "2015-11-16T05:46:22Z")
> [@Nullpersona](#): > > My idea owes no debt. > > It is incredible. Well, that’s true. > [@](#): > > in·cred·i·ble > inˈkredəb(ə)l/ > adjective > 1. > impossible to believe. ---
**Author:** ![Nullpersona](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5ac83/32.png) [@Nullpersona](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nullpersona)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2015, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-placenta-continue-to-function/736909/106 "2015-11-16T05:51:43Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > Well, that’s true. Exactly. If you cannot believe it, you cannot believe it. If you can, you can. By his perception, it is impossible. That is not the reality of the situation. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGrenze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dbc845/32.png) [@KarlGrenze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGrenze)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2015, 9:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-placenta-continue-to-function/736909/107 "2015-11-16T09:09:15Z")
> [@Nullpersona](#): > > That is not the reality of the situation. It is the physiologic reality of the situation. The placenta is not a self-sustaining organ. It is a way of protecting and carrying and exchanging nutrients and waste products between fetal and maternal sides. It is awesome and really good at that (in all species), but that is what it is. There is nothing wrong with it being unnecessary and discarded after birth. It served its great purpose. I understand you are against commercialization of placental products, and I can understand that. Frankly, other than saving for stem cells, I don’t see a lot of other benefits derived from the placenta itself. And I’d prefer the stem cells go towards research or transplants, not beauty products. ---
**Author:** ![Nullpersona](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5ac83/32.png) [@Nullpersona](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nullpersona)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2015, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-placenta-continue-to-function/736909/108 "2015-11-16T18:28:37Z")
> [@KarlGrenze](#): > > It is the physiologic reality of the situation. The placenta is not a self-sustaining organ. It is a way of protecting and carrying and exchanging nutrients and waste products between fetal and maternal sides. It is awesome and really good at that (in all species), but that is what it is. There is nothing wrong with it being unnecessary and discarded after birth. It served its great purpose. > > I understand you are against commercialization of placental products, and I can understand that. Frankly, other than saving for stem cells, I don’t see a lot of other benefits derived from the placenta itself. And I’d prefer the stem cells go towards research or transplants, not beauty products. What is a self-sustaining organ? Proof has been provided that it is perfectly functional up until birth. What proof has anyone provided, that it cannot continue to function? Conforming to a socially accepted norm of thinking, is useful for avoiding conflict with ignorance. Conflicting with a socially accepted norm of thinking, is a useful way to avoid conforming with ignorance. If there is some “Magical switch” that turns the placenta off at birth, no one has provided proof of it. The Wharton’s Jelly reacts to temperature and congeals, or it is clamped off by people. I ask the question, that others might ask the question. The world did not stop being flat overnight. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2015, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-placenta-continue-to-function/736909/109 "2015-11-16T20:16:34Z")
I think youve shifted the burden of proof. There is no evidence that the placenta has any purpose beyond birth, and litte reason to imagine that it might. If your view is to the contrary, bring some substance to back it up. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGrenze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dbc845/32.png) [@KarlGrenze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGrenze)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2015, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-placenta-continue-to-function/736909/110 "2015-11-16T20:30:03Z")
> [@Nullpersona](#): > > What is a self-sustaining organ? You seem to keep thinking that the placenta is what provides nutrients/energy to the fetus. No, it does not. A part of the placenta is integrated with the maternal circulation in order to conduct that exchage. The placenta and the maternal side form a unit that is involved with that. But the placenta by itself cannot give any energy to the fetus. > [@](#): > > Proof has been provided that it is perfectly functional up until birth. That is all it is needed for. Why is it so hard to accept the concept of a temporary organ? What does that belief goes against? > [@](#): > > What proof has anyone provided, that it cannot continue to function? Information has been provided in this thread. Also, keep in mind that the placenta is broken so that the fetus can get out (that is childbirth). What remains of the placenta are the vessels and part of the unit that is involved in nutrient exchange. But the placenta is broken at birth. By the fetus if not by the mother or attendants, this needs to be done so that the fetus can breathe air and you know, develop and survive outside of the uterus. > [@](#): > > If there is some “Magical switch” that turns the placenta off at birth, no one has provided proof of it. The Wharton’s Jelly reacts to temperature and congeals, or it is clamped off by people. They have provided it. And the fact that in many cases, the placenta is expelled from the uterus (instead of tugged out) is evidence that it is switched “off”. The uterus severs its connections and association with the placenta, amongst other things. Actually tugging at the placenta in numerous species IS risky, as the chances that the connections are still there and intact are higher, and the chances of bleeding (for the mother) are greater (multiple species). ---
**Author:** ![Nullpersona](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5ac83/32.png) [@Nullpersona](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nullpersona)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2015, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-placenta-continue-to-function/736909/111 "2015-11-17T00:06:36Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > I think youve shifted the burden of proof. There is no evidence that the placenta has any purpose beyond birth, and litte reason to imagine that it might. If your view is to the contrary, bring some substance to back it up. Thank you. None yet, as the placenta has not been kept after birth to find out. Imagination needs no reason, but if one cannot imagine the possible benefits of this, Oly had some nice ideas. What would constitute substance at this point. Chief Pedant provided proof of the placenta’s functionality up to birth. Oly provided conjecture based on their expertise and imagination. I am the progenitor of the idea. That is my role. > [@KarlGrenze](#): > > You seem to keep thinking that the placenta is what provides nutrients/energy to the fetus. No, it does not. A part of the placenta is integrated with the maternal circulation in order to conduct that exchage. The placenta and the maternal side form a unit that is involved with that. But the placenta by itself cannot give any energy to the fetus. Think of the placenta capable of being a super liquid lung. That lung does not spontaneously generate resources, it gleans them from the environment. > [@KarlGrenze](#): > > That is all it is needed for. Why is it so hard to accept the concept of a temporary organ? What does that belief goes against? I accept the concept of temporary organs. The second question is moot. The placenta may be temporary. Courtesy dictates I ask: Why is it so hard to accept the concept of the placenta as a permanent organ? What does that belief go against? > [@KarlGrenze](#): > > Information has been provided in this thread. Also, keep in mind that the placenta is broken so that the fetus can get out (that is childbirth). What remains of the placenta are the vessels and part of the unit that is involved in nutrient exchange. But the placenta is broken at birth. By the fetus if not by the mother or attendants, this needs to be done so that the fetus can breathe air and you know, develop and survive outside of the uterus. “Is broken” and “Breaks” have different actors. It does not “break”, it “is broken” by the environment, or the people around. > [@KarlGrenze](#): > > They have provided it. And the fact that in many cases, the placenta is expelled from the uterus (instead of tugged out) is evidence that it is switched “off”. The uterus severs its connections and association with the placenta, amongst other things. Actually tugging at the placenta in numerous species IS risky, as the chances that the connections are still there and intact are higher, and the chances of bleeding (for the mother) are greater (multiple species). I have not seen this proof, please quote and/or link. Understanding the placenta stands to improve the survival rate of both mother and child. _ **ALERT** _ Imminent humor _ **ALERT** _ Everyone has figurative buttons that may be pushed. This is an intellectual button that ironically has a physical manifestation on intellectual creatures that bear it. (People get upset, when talking about their belly buttons.) _ **ALL CLEAR** _ ---
**Author:** ![KarlGrenze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dbc845/32.png) [@KarlGrenze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGrenze)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2015, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-placenta-continue-to-function/736909/112 "2015-11-17T00:55:45Z")
> [@Nullpersona](#): > > Think of the placenta capable of being a super liquid lung. That lung does not spontaneously generate resources, it gleans them from the environment. The lung is a specialized organ that can extract oxygen from the air and release carbon dioxide. The placenta is not able to do that. Once again, the placenta cannot even exchange nutrients unless it is somewhat linked to the maternal side (uterus). > [@](#): > > I accept the concept of temporary organs. The second question is moot. The placenta may be temporary. Courtesy dictates I ask: Why is it so hard to accept the concept of the placenta as a permanent organ? What does that belief go against? It goes against physiology. The placenta is not supposed to be a permanent organ, anymore than the egg is a permanent organ in birds, reptiles, and fish. > [@](#): > > “Is broken” and “Breaks” have different actors. It does not “break”, it “is broken” by the environment, or the people around. When I speak of placentas, I speak in general, of multiple species (so no people needed). The placenta is broken by the fetus itself when getting out of it, it is broken by the physical force of giving birth, it is expelled by the uterus that contracts and pushes it out. Just like the egg has to be broken in order for the chicken or duckling to appear and develop, so does the placenta is broken. The placenta needs to break in order to remove the fetus (and thus get a baby, puppy, kitten, foal, calf, kid, etc.) > [@](#): > > Understanding the placenta stands to improve the survival rate of both mother and child. This is true, but you fail in attempting to understand what the placenta is and does. ---
**Author:** ![Nullpersona](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5ac83/32.png) [@Nullpersona](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nullpersona)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2015, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-placenta-continue-to-function/736909/113 "2015-11-17T01:56:36Z")
> [@KarlGrenze](#): > > The lung is a specialized organ that can extract oxygen from the air and release carbon dioxide. The placenta is not able to do that. Once again, the placenta cannot even exchange nutrients unless it is somewhat linked to the maternal side (uterus). > > It goes against physiology. The placenta is not supposed to be a permanent organ, anymore than the egg is a permanent organ in birds, reptiles, and fish. > > When I speak of placentas, I speak in general, of multiple species (so no people needed). The placenta is broken by the fetus itself when getting out of it, it is broken by the physical force of giving birth, it is expelled by the uterus that contracts and pushes it out. Just like the egg has to be broken in order for the chicken or duckling to appear and develop, so does the placenta is broken. The placenta needs to break in order to remove the fetus (and thus get a baby, puppy, kitten, foal, calf, kid, etc.) > > This is true, but you fail in attempting to understand what the placenta is and does. Either you, or I have no idea what a placenta is. The placenta I am referring to, never houses an infant. You must be referring to some other organ. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGrenze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dbc845/32.png) [@KarlGrenze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGrenze)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2015, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-placenta-continue-to-function/736909/114 "2015-11-17T01:59:14Z")
> [@Nullpersona](#): > > Either you, or I have no idea what a placenta is. > > The placenta I am referring to, never houses an infant. > > You must be referring to some other organ. Nope, I am referring to the correct organ. The placenta houses the fetus. You’re referring to some other organ, or a specific part of the placenta. ---
**Author:** ![Nullpersona](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5ac83/32.png) [@Nullpersona](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nullpersona)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2015, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-placenta-continue-to-function/736909/115 "2015-11-17T02:07:37Z")
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/Placenta.svg/2000px-Placenta.svg.png](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/Placenta.svg/2000px-Placenta.svg.png) > **[Placenta](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placenta)** > > The placenta is a temporary embryonic and later fetal organ that begins developing from the blastocyst shortly after implantation. It plays critical roles in facilitating nutrient, gas and waste exchange between the physically separate maternal and fetal circulations, and is an important endocrine organ, producing hormones that regulate both maternal and fetal physiology during pregnancy. The placenta connects to the fetus via the umbilical cord, and on the opposite aspect to the maternal uter Ma... The placenta is a discreet component of human anatomy. It is not the sack the baby is in, it is an appendage attached to the abdomen. Humans may not have to be separated from their placenta, any more than a flower must be separated from it’s root. If you neglect the root ball when transplanting a plant, it the roots die. Once the roots are damaged, if you leave the roots on, it may damage rest of the plant. This does not mean the root of the flower could not have worked, if in a proper environment. Until you see the analogy of the root, it is likely you will not understand the placenta. Is my logic unorthodox, perhaps. Flawed, maybe. Incorrect, no. (For clarity, the mother is the soil in the planter.) ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2015, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-placenta-continue-to-function/736909/116 "2015-11-17T04:45:35Z")
**OP** was, as the name of this forum suggests, a question. I suggest that either a) the question was answered and explored, or b) OP was posted as a declarative sentence, which is intended to remain one come hell or high water. Threads, like placentas in the real world, have a function and then when no longer useful become defunct. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2015, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-placenta-continue-to-function/736909/117 "2015-11-17T04:52:20Z")
So in zombie movies and TV shows, do undead placentae roam the earth, looking for babies to envelop? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2015, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-placenta-continue-to-function/736909/118 "2015-11-17T07:04:41Z")
> [@Nullpersona](#): > > Thank you. None yet, as the placenta has not been kept after birth to find out. Imagination needs no reason, but if one cannot imagine the possible benefits of this, Oly had some nice ideas. What would constitute substance at this point. > Chief Pedant provided proof of the placenta’s functionality up to birth. > Oly provided conjecture based on their expertise and imagination. > I am the progenitor of the idea. That is my role. It’s only possible to entertain this idea by means of gross wilful ignorance of evolution and biology in general. If the placenta has purpose beyond birth, why is it the case that no placental mammal on the planet does it? It’s preposterously unlikely that an important function of an organ would have been lost simultaneously and independently in all the branches of mammalian life. If the placenta _ever had_ the sort of function that you are proposing, it would very likely be completely impossible to restore it now, after millions of years of non-use. Evolution tends to obliterate functions that fall completely out of use (it’s not guaranteed that this will happen, but after millions of generations of non-use, in a context where non-use doesn’t matter, it’s really very likely that mutations will have broken something). ---
**Author:** ![KarlGrenze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dbc845/32.png) [@KarlGrenze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGrenze)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2015, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-placenta-continue-to-function/736909/119 "2015-11-17T08:52:16Z")
> [@Nullpersona](#): > > [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/Placenta.svg/2000px-Placenta.svg.png](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/Placenta.svg/2000px-Placenta.svg.png) Eh, no, the diagram is flawed. What that picture is pointing out is the placental fetal/maternal attachment site. The placenta is the whole sac that contains the fetus. > [@](#): > > [Placenta - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placenta) You’ve failed to properly see the pictures and other diagrams provided, or to carefully read and understand what is written. > [@](#): > > It is not the sack the baby is in, it is an appendage attached to the abdomen. Eh, nope… check the diagram. I think you’re confusing the placental fetal/maternal exchange part with the whole placenta (the attachment site). The umbilical vessels (and urachus) run from the abdomen to the placental attachment site (or placenta in non-discoid placental animals). > [@](#): > > Humans may not have to be separated from their placenta, any more than a flower must be separated from it’s root. Stop treating the placenta as if it is solely a human thing. It is not, it happens in all mammalian species. > [@](#): > > Is my logic unorthodox, perhaps. Flawed, maybe. Incorrect, no. > > (For clarity, the mother is the soil in the planter.) Your logic is unorthodox, flawed, and incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![Nullpersona](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5ac83/32.png) [@Nullpersona](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nullpersona)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2015, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-placenta-continue-to-function/736909/120 "2015-11-17T09:02:00Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > **OP** was, as the name of this forum suggests, a question. I suggest that either a) the question was answered and explored, or b) OP was posted as a declarative sentence, which is intended to remain one come hell or high water. > > Threads, like placentas in the real world, have a function and then when no longer useful become defunct. I stated the question had been answered. The discussion continues. You may choose not to participate. > [@Mangetout](#): > > It’s only possible to entertain this idea by means of gross wilful ignorance of evolution and biology in general. > > If the placenta has purpose beyond birth, why is it the case that no placental mammal on the planet does it? It’s preposterously unlikely that an important function of an organ would have been lost simultaneously and independently in all the branches of mammalian life. > > If the placenta _ever had_ the sort of function that you are proposing, it would very likely be completely impossible to restore it now, after millions of years of non-use. > Evolution tends to obliterate functions that fall completely out of use (it’s not guaranteed that this will happen, but after millions of generations of non-use, in a context where non-use doesn’t matter, it’s really very likely that mutations will have broken something). Could the placenta have become vestigial? Not as long as humans are being born. Your arguments have merit, but are assuming that the placenta decides to die instantly at birth. There is cause and effect for everything. What causes the placenta to stop working? Have we adapted to shut them off? Possibly. Do you have any proof of that specific genetic evolution? When very-likely and probably are the extent of your certitude, it is conjecture. I would drop it like a bad habit, if it weren’t true. Wouldn’t you? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-placenta-continue-to-function/736909.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-placenta-continue-to-function/736909.md?page=7)