"Stubborn baby wouldn't drop!"

[minkajane]

I have read a lot of C-section support threads on other boards (I had a C/S) and a very common comment is something to the effect of “I went into labor/was induced but I had to have a C-section after X hours because the baby was high and wouldn’t drop. Stubborn baby!” Anyone else get irked by this? The baby decided that they didn’t want to leave the womb ever, so they were just going to park their rear ends up around their mom’s ribs and not move no matter what. I guess these are the same babies that are manipulating their parents with all that crying for food when it’s only been two hours since they ate and wanting to be held instead of plunked in a crib and rooting when boobies are for men, not babies!

[MomOfImandZee]

It's hard to tell the tone of a post, you know. I can hear it being said in a very joking and affectionate way. I joke that my dd was so comfy in my womb because I served donuts and pop my 9th month, that she decided that she would just stay there forever. And believe it or not, I don't actually think that my fetal daughter had that thought process and made a conscious choice not to drop.

[minkajane]

I get that it's meant in a joking tone, but it seems to be just one more excuse for why labor "just doesn't work" and laying blame on the baby for it so that the mother doesn't have to face her fear that her body is "broken," as the medical community keeps telling her.

[velcromom]

So what's the deal with not dropping? Is there a specific reason in most cases that makes it physically impossible - super short cord, or something? I've never really seen an article or anything that talks about this and always wonder why it happens when I read it in a birth story.

[cottonwood]

So what's the deal with not dropping? Is there a specific reason in most cases that makes it physically impossible - super short cord, or something? I've never really seen an article or anything that talks about this and always wonder why it happens when I read it in a birth story.

Unless we're talking about pelvic deformation, it happens because the body isn't ready to birth the baby. It really is just as simple as that. A short cord shouldn't stop the baby from being born, as the uterus and placenta are moving down with the baby.

[skueppers]

Originally Posted by fourlittlebirds

it happens because the body isn't ready to birth the baby. It really is just as simple as that.

I had the "not dropping" thing happen with my daughter, and that's what I assumed it was. It never even occurred to me that it could be due to some kind of physical problem!

I can't even imagine my OB suggesting a c-section in that situation, unless there were some indication that the baby wasn't faring well.

[pookel]

Is it really common to have C/S for the baby not dropping? I guess I assumed that most failure-to-progress C/S were like mine (fully dilated and the baby was RIGHT THERE, but he was stuck and I couldn't push him out any further).

[minkajane]

Officially, they're failure to progress and 90% of the time they're with inductions. The baby drops when labor is close or beginning. His head pressing on the cervix helps it to dilate. If the baby is "floating" or high in the uterus, the cervix normally won't dilate normally because the baby's not ready to be born.

[amandacj08]

I was induced for pre-eclampsia with my first son and he was presenting face up (nor was he ready for birth) he never dropped and I ended up with a c-section. With my ds #2 was also high and face up - he nevered turned during labor so I ended up pushing him out face up, but I had to push to even get him into the birth canal. He was too big to turn and never descended on his own. That was HARD WORK - but I felt so empowered afterwards.

It is interesting to note that with both sons I had anterior placentas. From what I understand, babies like to face their placentas, and a face up baby can remain high and floating/have problems descending into the pelvis.

[Finch]

Pelvic structure can affect a baby's ability to descend, and not just pelvic "deformity," either. Some baby heads are too big to descend into their mamas pelvises. Simple physics.

I have a hip deformity. My son did not descend. He also has an unusually large head.

[kim_nz]

I had the not dropping thing with my first ended up having a c/s and i put it down to my pelvis being twisted. I didnt find this out until 32wks pregnant with #2 after i had been to a chiropractor and then 1wk later she dropped and had a VBAC. Who knows if that was it or not?

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by minkajane

I get that it's meant in a joking tone, but it seems to be just one more excuse for why labor "just doesn't work" and laying blame on the baby for it so that the mother doesn't have to face her fear that her body is "broken," as the medical community keeps telling her.

FWIW, I used to joke about my acrobatic ds1 turning breech when I was in labour, and called him a "silly baby". I did the same thing with dd (she was breech at my 39 week checkup and I freaked)...how my "hyper jumping bean" couldn't settle down. I still believe that labour works, and intend to have a HBA3C for my next. I also totally had/have fear that my body doesn't work, and have faced that a lot. (This feeling was aggravated by years of secondary infertility and three miscarriages.)

I don't blame my babies at all. They were just doing their thing. DS1 definitely took me by surprise, because I didn't even know a baby could turn breech during labour.

[MommytoTwo]

I had a c/s because after 33 hours of pitocin I wasnt dialating more and the baby was at a -3 when he was born. He never dropped at all. CLearly he wasnt ready to be born but he also had the cord tightly wrapped around his neck.

I often say to people that my babies dont like to come out (dd went to 42 weeks). In no way do I not understand what happened or why but I dont see that it is necessary to provide the details of my births if I dont want to.

[Spark]

Originally Posted by fourlittlebirds

Unless we're talking about pelvic deformation, it happens because the body isn't ready to birth the baby. It really is just as simple as that. A short cord shouldn't stop the baby from being born, as the uterus and placenta are moving down with the baby.

My first had a super short cord. I had a labor that had a lot of stops and starts. My husband caught him and *tried* to put him on my stomach, but could not get him past just above my pubic bone. The thing is, he did come out eventually.

Ignorant baby, not making his cord long enough. : Seriously, I think it's silly to blame the baby for a "fault". I didn't like it when I was 2 months along, though, and people would talk to my belly saying, "Stop making your mom so sick." Not my baby's fault. My body just wasn't processing things well.

[MomOfImandZee]

Originally Posted by minkajane

I get that it's meant in a joking tone, but it seems to be just one more excuse for why labor "just doesn't work" and laying blame on the baby for it so that the mother doesn't have to face her fear that her body is "broken," as the medical community keeps telling her.

I guess I feel that, if this is her way of dealing with this pain and if this is her process of healing, so be it. It doesn't seem fair to assume that every mother who puts a joking spin on this will see their babies as manipulating them by crying for food or human contact. I think that's an uncalled-for judgement.

[ndunn]

I hear this all the time and it makes me sad because I know that the percentage of women who just can't give birth is not that high.

My theory is it has something to do with a subconcious not feeling comfortable in the birthing environment thing, or something along that line.

[sapphire_chan]

Originally Posted by skueppers

I had the "not dropping" thing happen with my daughter, and that's what I assumed it was. It never even occurred to me that it could be due to some kind of physical problem!

I can't even imagine my OB suggesting a c-section in that situation, unless there were some indication that the baby wasn't faring well.

Send that OB of yours some flowers and chocolate and coupons for hand massages so they can keep working as long as they live.

[sapphire_chan]

Originally Posted by Finch

Pelvic structure can affect a baby's ability to descend, and not just pelvic "deformity," either. Some baby heads are too big to descend into their mamas pelvises. Simple physics.

I have a hip deformity. My son did not descend. He also has an unusually large head.

I'm not sure how the hip deformity plays into your story. Are you mentioning it because it affected your pelvic size? That wouldn't really counteract Fourlittlebirds comment, merely amend it to note that other things can affect pelvic size.

Yep, there are in fact cases, such as yours, where there the baby truely will not fit. And thank goodness for c-sections.

However, when I hear stories of women being told to schedule a c-section at 38 weeks because they're short (because, you know, 5'1" is *so* tiny for a woman), I get a bit suspicious.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by sapphire_chan

However, when I hear stories of women being told to schedule a c-section at 38 weeks because they're short (because, you know, 5'1" is *so* tiny for a woman), I get a bit suspicious.

Me, too. My MIL is 5'2", and small-built. She gave birth, vaginally, to four boys, all well over 9lbs.