or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The UC from Hell - Page 4

post #61 of 78
Originally Posted by Cynthia Mosher View Post

After doing a little checking we found hey kingsville and theRN share the same IP, same cookie, and same computer, which tells me this thread and "My POV of my UC 'from Hell' thread are suspicious in nature. So, I'm suspending those two accounts and contacting them. If they can provide some sort of evidence of this story and evidence of their separate identities I will return their access. If not then we'll know this is what it seems to be.

Just as I suspected.

post #62 of 78

There were plenty of other things that didn't add up (though a bit less obviously than many trolls), plus the "lol" thing... ehhh...  And there were little things, like both of them using the term "certified sonographer," that I didn't point out because-- at least in theory-- friends who had discussed these things in depth would tend to use the same terminology.  But, you know... a  15-1/4 lb baby... "caused" by the foolishness that is a UP/UC*... and birthed vaginally, unassisted...




Still, what really got me doing the headscratch.gifthing was the whole tone of "I hated all doctors, never listened to anything 'medical,' ever, and loved all things 'natural,' but lo, what a fool I (obviously) was!"  Ermmm...  Yeah. 


Folk have too much time on their hands.



*Pardon me for skimming, but WHY was the baby so large, again?  It's one thing to blame "crunchiness" for not getting a (notoriously-inaccurate, but okay) U/S to determine the baby's size and having a "proper" C/S for macrosomia or whatever...  Fine-- imply that her "crunchiness" was the cause of not having this gigantic baby DETECTED.  But what was supposed to be the cause of the gigantic-ness in the first place?  Why was the baby supposed to be TWICE the size of an average newborn, again?  That's so incredibly off the charts that it's not something that happens to someone BECAUSE they UC/UP.  Are we supposed to believe it was because of postdates?  So babies are all at least 6-8 lbs at 40 weeks, and typically gain, what, 1.5-2 lbs PER week after 40 weeks?  EVERY week?  biglaugh.gif


Good times!

post #63 of 78

Here's an older article from 2008, which sites a 14 lber, a 16 lber, and a 17 lber -- all of whom were apparently born in hospitals. The one in the article was a major abdominal surgery birth, and the others are only mentioned, so no knowledge on what those mothers went to. The biggest baby I found was a 19 lber also born via major abdominal surgery.


A quick search of "15 lb baby" kicked up this article, wherein the minnesota baby was born via c-section 3 weeks early. In fact, at 15 lbs and 6 oz. When you type in 2011 with 15 lb baby, you get the baby born in bulgaria. No reports on *how* he was born, though. :)


so, was the isp, cookie, and computer in question in bulgaria? :D

post #64 of 78

yeah, it's the funniest thing about weights, too. 


i mean, i was like -- yeah, a baby might gain a lb a week from 38 weeks on, so taking into account the 15 lber in the first article, had he stayed in 3 more weeks, he would have been an 18 lber. they don't mention GD specifically, but I suspect that's why they went ahead and took him out. they knew he was large. A lot of moms with GD know that they are likely to be induced or have a c-sectione early for GD.


and it's true. if she had a sonogram at X date which would have included an estimated weight, it doesn't make a lot of sense that a baby would gain 1.5-2 lbs per week at the end. unless there was some underlying health condition.

post #65 of 78

I think we can all agree that this story is complete fiction written by somebody who just wanted to stir up the stupid hippies. *rolls eyes*


post #66 of 78

I thought the LOLs were weird myself especially the first quote here what is funny about the beauty of natural birth and why is beauty 'beauty' to her? VERY odd....

Originally Posted by jaylily View Post

Who writes "lol" at the end of serious phrases anyway.  "all I was seeing was the 'beauty' in that natural birth lol", "by this time I was bleeding like a slaughtered pig lol", and has things figured out that quickly after a birth...


Most UC'ers aren't against hospitals in the case of a true emergency.  And a 15 lb baby would make the news!


post #67 of 78

Despite the fact that this thread was pretty clearly started by a troll, I think it stimulated some useful and interesting discussion, which I love!

post #68 of 78
I think this story is made up, though for the life of me I have no idea why. It doesnt sound like an awful UC at all. Sure, postdates causes still birth, but that has nothing to do with the story of someone delivering a healthy baby, does it? And you can tear anywhere, being at home doesn't make a bit of difference- it may even improve the odds of not getting a tear. so what was the point of posting????

I had a CS, and the recovery was super easy. I was shocked. I would choose it over a major tear, any day, but that's just me. The thing is- a CS is a Cs, but you arent guaranteed a tear, KWIM? It's great we can make these choices for ourselves.
post #69 of 78

So you are on a UC support board...why?

post #70 of 78
Originally Posted by MJB View Post

One of the issues with "late" babies is that their skulls are less moldable. The fetal/infant skull becomes more ossified each week. 

I've had two unassisted homebirths, but there is NO WAY I would choose to UC (or homebirth) a postdates 15 lb. baby. I think it's insane to say you'd prefer a 4th degree tear and major hemorrhage (at home, nonetheless!) to a c-section. Yes, c-sections carry risks, but they are a lot lower than this specific scenario. 

And no, a midwife cannot stitch up a 4th degree tear at home. You need serious anesthetics and a surgeon for that. Preferably within an hour or two of birth. 

Hmmm....did I say this?

post #71 of 78

glad to hear the accounts were suspended.... sad news that there is someone out there with so much free time and so little common decency.

post #72 of 78

I wrote a reply a few days ago about the "lol" thing but didn't post it (wanted to wait and see where this thing went).  So now I'm lol'ing that a bunch of us got the same vibe from someone using her "lol"s so....flippantly?  I was, like, picturing a 16yo girl writing the post, and like, nervously laughing as she uttered phrases she wasn't, um, like, used to saying.  wink1.gif

post #73 of 78
Originally Posted by RoseRedHoofbeats View Post

I think we can all agree that this story is complete fiction written by somebody who just wanted to stir up the stupid hippies. *rolls eyes*


lol I think so too. wild.gif


post #74 of 78

Just to continue the lark about big, big babies. . .


According to the interwebs, a 16 lb baby boy was born via c-section in Texas. His mother suffered from GD. The doctor's expected him to weigh 12-13 lbs, instead he was 16, and 24 inches long. :) He's cute, too. :D


According to that same article: According to Guinness World Records, the biggest baby on record weighed in at 23.12 pounds at birth back in 1879 in Canada. I don't know what the situation of obstetric/midwifery care was in Canada in 1879.


In looking up the record online, I found: Anna Bates (née Swan) (Canada) (1846-88), who measured 2.27 m (7 ft 5.5 in) tall, gave birth to a boy weighing 10.8 kg (23 lb 12 oz) and measuring 76 cm (30 in) long, at her home in Seville, Ohio, USA, on January 19, 1879, but the baby died 11 hours later. (Both his mother and father had giantism and worked for PT Barnum). It doesn't say whether or not that homebirth was attended, nor does it give the cause of death. 


Fascinating, though. There are other births, too, where apparently large infants survived -- infants that were 20 or so lbs at birth -- born in italy and the UK. both apparently under midwifery care, and both before 1955!


Interesting reading, really. 

post #75 of 78

I would not consider UC for myself because I have had severe complications with both my babies, but I would like to point out that with my first, I was induced and had a 4th degree EPISIOTOMY in the hospital. My baby was not huge and the cut was NOT necessary, but they did it and cut so far that I have had problems ever since. So, I don't really see the tear as a valid arguement against having your baby on your own, since it can also happen in the hospital.  As long as she sought medical help afterwards, I don't see that this is a big problem. 

post #76 of 78

you're actually a lot more likely to tear if you get cut than if you're left alone to tear naturally.  

post #77 of 78

sorry, i only brought this back up to the front to talk about big babies, again, not to give any validity to this post, which has been shown to be completely fabricated.

post #78 of 78
Originally Posted by lightinmyhands View Post

you're actually a lot more likely to tear if you get cut than if you're left alone to tear naturally.  

Pushing for a length of time will worsen a tear (if any) because the perineum isnt relaxed or as "elastic" as if you were just letting baby slide out or waiting until baby's head was visibly crowning.


New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Unassisted Childbirth