Birth experience and baby temperament - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 41 Old 10-25-2010, 11:52 AM - Thread Starter
 
porcelina's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,340
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
My mom is a psychotherapist, and she is interested in this theory suggesting that birth is a trauma for babies. An implication of this theory is that women who have long, difficult labors, are likely to release more stress hormones, and these may affect baby's temperament. She's convinced that my first son, who was collicky, and is still often hard to settle and highly sensitive is somehow related to my long (by some standards, 16 hours, requiring vacuum but ultimately vaginal, 2 hrs pushing) and traumatic birth experience.

My second was born after just 3 hours of labor and 10 minutes of pushing. Honestly, his temperament seems much more easy going, mainly in that I can put him down to sleep (first only slept on me), he doesn't startle every 20 seconds like my first did (I counted, every 20 seconds for at least 5-10 mins) as a newborn, he sometimes settles himself after a bit of crying (whereas my first always rapidly escalated to desperation as soon as he started crying), etc.

Personally, I think it is totally just a coincidence, and that this theory is a load of, well, you know. But, just to give her a chance, have your different birth experiences been associated with different temperaments, with harder births = harder babies, easier births = easier babies?

Mama to angel1.gif angel1.gif angel1.gif angel1.gifangel1.gif

DS1 (6) jog.gif , DS2 (3)sleepytime.gifbaby.gif DD is here!

porcelina is offline  
#2 of 41 Old 10-25-2010, 12:09 PM
 
CI Mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 796
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I had a long, difficult labor (33 hours, c-section) and I wouldn't describe my daughter as "difficult." She's a bright, funny, happy, headstrong 2-year-old who sometimes has meltdowns (like all 2-year-olds), and I neither take credit for nor blame myself for her temperament.

I don't think there's any "one thing" that determines someone's temperament. I see temperament/personality as a complex stew of biological and environmental factors, plus something else (karma? divine intervention? whole-is-bigger-than-sum-of-the-parts something? I don't really know what).

I tend to agree with you that theories of this kind are BS. There is a persistent strain of psychology that is intent on blaming the mother for anything "wrong" with the kid. This just looks like the latest variation on that theme.

That isn't to say that we shouldn't help mothers have easier birthing experiences when possible, but sheesh, let's not load another guilt trip onto moms who have already been through a lot to bring their babies into the world.

Just my 2 cents!

Living in Wisconsin with my partner of 20+ years and our DDenergy.gif(Born 10/09/08 ribboncesarean.gif). Why CI Mama? Because I love contact improvisation!

CI Mama is offline  
#3 of 41 Old 10-25-2010, 12:10 PM
 
philomom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 9,439
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I had quick, natural births with no interventions. I had one high needs baby and one mellow, but didn't sleep baby.
philomom is offline  
#4 of 41 Old 10-25-2010, 12:11 PM
 
CBEmomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: MN/IA
Posts: 213
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I actually agree with your mom. I think there is more to it than just the length of birth, but I do think your mom is on to something.

My first birth was vaginal. It was 27 hours with 2 hours of pushing. The first 15 hours was fine, I was at home. But then after that I went to the hospital and once I arrived they broke my water, gave me pitocin and said I couldn't get up from bed. Then I had the Epidural. My son was born needing oxygen, and slept the first 3 days. He was a very colicky baby and at 3 years old has ADHD and sensory issues. Hes pediatrician who specalizes in behavior problems thinks he has something more than ADHD because he can be very wild.

My second birth was amazing. A homebirth, very peaceful, didn't feel any stress or pressure. Birth was still long, 24 hours with 1 hour of pushing. But baby was born pink and plump. No problems with breathing or anything, was very alert and breastfeed 20 minutes later. He is a very happy, content, and calm baby. He rarely cries or fusses. Easy to put to sleep, etc. It is complete night and day with them.

~Attatchment and Natural Parent from instincts not from books to my 2 boys~ Childbirth Educator & Placental Encapsulation Professional
homeschool.gif familybed2.gif homebirth.jpgribbonpb.gif
CBEmomma is offline  
#5 of 41 Old 10-25-2010, 12:51 PM
 
mmaramba's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 261
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'd be surprised if it didn't have SOME effect, but as PP said, there are way too many factors that go into temperment (especially temperment past infancy) to ascribe too much importance to birth circumstances. You're going to get a lot of anec-data here-- I wouldn't put that much stock into it (no offense).

And now, my anec-data.

My brother is MUCH more "difficult" than I am as an adult, but I was the far more colicky baby. I am the oldest, so my mom's labor with me was (not surprisingly) longer, but my brother's had more interventions... She went pain-med free with both of us, but we were 10 years apart, and when she had my brother at age 40, they induced her with pitocin. Both births were relatively uneventful (for hospital births) and less than 12 hours long.

Like I said, I'd be surprised if birth had NO effect on infants' temperments, but it could hardly be the only factor, and I'd expect the effect to be diluted as we grew older... Though I'm sure we are molded by the fact that, for whatever reason we were colicky or "easy," our parents, et al., reacted to us differently.

The idea that ADD is caused by birth experiences is a little irritating to me, as someone who has ADD and doesn't think it's a bad thing-- and who is tired of hearing it "blamed" on high fructose corn syrup, vaccines, the invention of the combustion engine, etc., and further has the research to show a strong genetic link. I'm sure a lot of ASD people feel the same way.
mmaramba is offline  
#6 of 41 Old 10-25-2010, 12:52 PM
 
miami mommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: now in Seattle!
Posts: 134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I've only had one baby so far and I do agree that birth can be traumatic for babies, but I doubt my birth had any effect on DS's temperament. His birth was pretty peaceful, was at a birth center, intervention-free, very calm atmosphere. I only labored for ~8 hrs and I stayed pretty calm until transition and I only had to push for less than 30 mins before he came flying out. He is fairly high needs and still has to nap on me while I bounce on an exercise ball. He's a baby that knows what he wants and has to have it right away and with the way my labor progressed, it was almost like he decided one afternoon that he wanted out that day and made that happen (he was born 12 mins before midnight).

SAHM to DS (11/09) with a little girl coming in October stork-girl.gif familybed1.gif

miami mommy is offline  
#7 of 41 Old 10-25-2010, 01:25 PM
 
kitkat5505's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Utah
Posts: 676
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
1st baby- 22hrs, typical hospital labor and birth, not a lot of stress, epidural, ended in unplanned c/s. Super easy-going baby, easy to nurse, hardly cried, instant bonding.
2nd baby- 20hrs, Completely natural vbac in hospital. Obviously painful at the end, but great birth. Baby was super hard, harder to nurse, cried anytime he wasn't held, didn't nap, didn't sleep. Miserable, took longer to bond.
3rd baby- 2 days, planned birth center turned emergency transfer and c/s under general. Good labor, extremely stressful last few hours. Another easy-going baby, nursed great, instant bonding.

So for me, I never put much stock in the theories that more natural easy births create happier babies, better bonding, better nursing, etc.

Kara mommy to Jason 9/27/04 ribboncesarean.gif, Jacob 6/1/06 vbac.gif, Nathan 11/13/08 ribboncesarean.gif, and twin boys Isaac and Caleb born 1/10/11 vbac.gif
kitkat5505 is offline  
#8 of 41 Old 10-25-2010, 01:35 PM
 
bri276's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 6,050
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't buy it. What's the premise, anyway, that babies are sitting around obsessing about their birth or that it just subconsciously affected them so dramatically? More than everything that happened since that one day, all the cuddles and calm and nursing and love afterward can't possibly affect their temperment but that one day of L&D permanently scars them? Makes no sense.

Quote:
So for me, I never put much stock in the theories that more natural easy births create happier babies, better bonding, better nursing, etc
ITA. I bonded immediately with DD1 after a pit induction w/ 3 hours of pushing and 5 days in the NICU- easiest baby in the world. I felt like DD2 was someone else's baby for almost 24 hours after a 100% natural labor. Pushing her out only took 20 minutes but was extremely...intense for me and actually I think if I'd had pain relief for pushing I might have bonded to her faster. We're great now but she's a higher needs baby, sleeps much less, has colicky times, etc.

DD1 7/13/05 DD2 9/20/10
bri276 is offline  
#9 of 41 Old 10-25-2010, 01:35 PM
 
MyFullHouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 593
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think it's a crock, based on my own experiences. My most traumatic delivery resulted in an unusually laid back baby (compared to his 3 older siblings). My fasted, easiest l&d is my high-stress kid, and always has been.

I do joke about the fact that my blonds have been delivered by blonds, and my brunettes have been delivered by brunettes, but sometimes a coincidence is just a coincidence!

Carrie .. 
Raising a full house- Kings (12, 3, new) over Queens (8, 7)
 
MyFullHouse is offline  
#10 of 41 Old 10-25-2010, 01:45 PM
 
lach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: MA
Posts: 2,042
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think that birth is SUPPOSED to be pretty traumatic for babies, so I'm not sure I buy into that. Babies are made to bend in strange ways so that they can fit through the birth canal. I can't imagine that it's particularly pleasant to have your skull be in multiple pieces so it can squish together and make it out of Mom. And don't forget that going through the birth canal is supposed to be a REALLY tight fit, and one of the frequent complications with C sections is that the baby doesn't get all the fluid squeezed out of her. I mean, when you're saying that it's a GOOD thing that the baby is squeezed so tightly that her lungs are completely compressed and anything in them has to come out, you're definitely not talking "fun times." Then there are mom hormones and baby hormones designed to race through them, and that can't be entirely pleasant.

If any of us, as adults, recreated a birth experience we'd most likely end up dead!

I think that births can range from easy to traumatic for Mom... but I kind of have the feeling that as far as the baby is concerned, birth ranges from traumatic to very traumatic. Luckily, they have very, very short memories!

Trying to live a simple life in a messy house in a complicated world with : DH, DD (b. 07/07), DS (b. 02/09), and DD (b. 10/10)
lach is offline  
#11 of 41 Old 10-25-2010, 03:37 PM
 
kindchen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 133
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't buy it. I think temperament is a result of biology, and that experiences/nurture can help people "express" their temperament in a more or less healthy/positive way. However, babies express their temperaments in the most unfiltered way.

I had short labors and home births with both girls. With the first, pushing was intense and I was stressed for 1 1/2 hours of pushing. She screamed for 3 months. With the second, I had a calmer pushing stage and she is slightly less intense. I don't think my labor was the cause of either child's temperament.
kindchen is offline  
#12 of 41 Old 10-25-2010, 05:01 PM
 
47chromosomes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 457
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
With my children I kind of think it as the other way around. My first son has special needs (Down Syndrome), but was an easy going baby. Labor with him was kind of unassuming, straight-forward, he was calm and healthy at birth. I kind of think of it as he just went with the flow of labor and birth because he's just a go-with-the-flow kind of guy.

With my second son, he was in an acynclitic position and stayed in that position despite chiropractic treatments, positioning, crawling around my house on my hands and knees for the last weeks of pregnancy. I thought of him as a stubborn little guy before he was even born. Labor was long and painful, but not traumatic, and when he was finally born he was healthy and calm after some help to get him breathing well (just a few puffs of the ambu bag--he was already breathing, but not great). He nursed well, was fairly calm, but as I had suspected was/is a very stubborn fellow who always knows exactly what he wants and is not likely to settle for something else. As a baby this mean lots of crying until we figured out his need. My easy going number one would settle for anything.

Anyway, for me I felt my son's unique personalities contributed to the way birth played out. Of course, I should add both of my births had women centered teams who let me do what I needed to, and despite minor complications in each, I never felt afraid or traumatized (though very emotional in the second one). I will see if my own theory turns out to be true for me as I suspect the boy I am expecting now is a very easy going, sensitive fellow.

Kim. My heart is full! Wife to Ray, Mama to 3 boys!  "Big C", our boy with designer genes, "Little C", and "Baby M" 11/2010.
47chromosomes is offline  
#13 of 41 Old 10-25-2010, 06:47 PM
 
kcparker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: IC, IA
Posts: 1,629
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think temperament is largely genetic, and I would hate to think that any one event that is universal for everybody on the planet could be some sort of make-or-break deal that sets the tone for an entire lifetime.

I have a doula friend who has a hypothesis that first babies are more colicky and high needs because they have more head molding and are in pain from the plates moving, but I am not sure I buy this entirely because the fussiness can last for weeks or months.

I would love to see if there is a correlation between birth order and colicky/high-needs behavior in infants. I have anecdotal evidence that points to #1 being more fussy and hard to soothe, with #2 being more laid back, but I can see that being subject to recall bias, parental inexperience versus ease with caring for a newborn, preformed expectations about what the baby 'should' be like, etc. I would bet money that just like it's been discovered that maternal antigens play a role in younger sons being more likely to be gay than older sons, there will be a discovery that the hormonal bath that #1 marinates in affects the hormonal bath that #2 marinates in. Just as that first baby 'blazes the trail' through the pelvis, I bet the mother's body is learning/adjusting/adapting in all sorts of subtle biochemical ways that we are only starting to get an inkling of. But I'm no scientist.

Doula, WOHM, wife to a super-fun papa, mama to the Monkey ('07), and his little brother, the Sea Monkey ('09).
kcparker is offline  
#14 of 41 Old 10-25-2010, 07:12 PM
 
earthyamber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Airway Heights (Spokane), WA
Posts: 372
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't buy it. I think that it is something that happens and is not caused my birth. We all have different personalities and that is okay. I have two daughters who are COMPLETELY different. I am pregnant with my 3rd (due in 3 weeks) and can't wait to see what she is like.

Daughter 1 - Medically induced at 42 weeks, took hours to get into labor, once I was in labor it was only 6 hours, no problems, no pain meds, born at hospital, 9 lb 6 oz and 22 inches. She was the most laid back, easy going, happy baby that I have ever seen. She slept through the night really early and was just super easy. She is now 9 years old and still a great, easy, happy kid.

Daughter 2 - Self induced with castor oil at 40 +3, 4 hour labor, no pain meds, she was born posterior, no problems, most relaxed labor, 9 lb 15 oz and 23 inches, born at birth center. This was my favorite birth even with her positioning and size. She was a very difficult baby, colicky, never slept, hated people, hated change, clingy, etc. She is now 5 years old and the same way. They believe she has a form of autism but definately has developmental delays. She is still anti-social, cries constantly, doesn't sleep, clingy, easily upset, etc.

Amber (31) - Married to my high school sweetheart for 13 years, mom of 4 amazing kids (ages 12, 8, 3, and 16 months), homeschooler, and expecting our 5th child around May 18th!
earthyamber is offline  
#15 of 41 Old 10-26-2010, 12:59 AM
 
MujerMamaMismo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,733
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
All kinds of people have all kinds of theories about this. I do know of several women though, who have elective caesarean births because they believe it's the least traumatic for babies. One woman even crossed into a neighbouring European country to birth her first babe because her home country does not allow elective caesareans.

I don't believe it for a minute and can't believe woman would choose to start out so far behind the 8-ball.

My son was born in 6.5 hrs without intervention in a very straightforward manner and has been a delight, except for the fact that he didn't sleep for longer than an hour for the first 20 months of his life!

One gorgeous solstice babe 12/08, two smitten mothers - mothering consciously with conscience and compassion. Birth & Postnatal Doula. Student Midwife. Expecting #2 November '12.

MujerMamaMismo is offline  
#16 of 41 Old 10-26-2010, 06:33 AM
 
alfabetsoup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 666
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think it's just another stick to beat women with. If you don't have an easy birth your baby will be unhappy!!! Stay calm!!! Don't make too much noise!!! Don't get stressed!!! YOU WILL DAMAGE YOUR BABY!!!!!

It's simply not true. Have a look on these pages for all the women struggling to come to terms with their not-so-great birth experiences and then decide if you really want to throw one more guilt trip at them.

Vaginal birth in a calm and relaxed setting where everybody is healthy and happy is what most people would choose, but they don't always get that choice.
alfabetsoup is offline  
#17 of 41 Old 10-26-2010, 06:44 AM
 
GoBecGo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,596
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
ITA with alfabetsoup. This is just another finger of blame to point at women!

My first was a planned HB, 1hour24min active labour, 5mins pushing, apgars 9, 7, 10 (the 7, i believe, was because she was shocked at the speed of her exit and the MW cut the cord right away, she had some oxygen from a tube near her face and soon got over it). She was incredibly high needs. Cried for hours every night, is still a very demanding and challenging personality.

My 2nd was a planned HB, 61mins active labour, 6mins pushing, apgars 10, 10, 10. She is the mellowest creature alive, has been sttn since birth (i mean 7-9 hours, not the 5 we might hope for from a bigger BF baby).

They have different fathers and are both like their fathers in terms of temperament. Not a huge surprise. I was born at 37+4 in a planned csection (VBAC wasn't an option). I was a mellow baby, a HN toddler and a conscientious and "good" child. I am a stubborn, strong-willed, no-nonsense feminist woman now. I have been through sex abuse, rape, the illness and death of a parent, wonderful and terrible relationships, fantastic and devastating experiences. I honestly feel there is almost NOTHING of me i can trace back to those 5 minutes of my life when i was suddenly wrenched unexpectedly into the daylight through my mother's side.
GoBecGo is offline  
#18 of 41 Old 10-26-2010, 07:15 AM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,610
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
I'm not inclined to put too much stock in it, but I can think of one line of thought that might support it. I'm a Traditional Foodie, so I've read a lot of Weston A Price's stuff, and he paid a lot of attention to traditional cultures with excellent health and the diets he felt contributed to that health. One thing that cropped up time and time again was the relationship between traditional foods and short, easy labours. In a lot of tribal societies, births were easy and quick UNTIL processed foods were introduced - white sugar, white flour and so on. Then a generation later, women were having much much harder labours. The inferior diets meant poor bone structure, so badly-formed pelvises and so on.

So.

It's reasonable to assume that a baby well-nourished in the womb might be more mellow outside it, as there's an obvious relationship between nutrition and mental health in adults. And a mother with good zinc levels (who would therefore produce a baby with good zinc levels) has a better chance at bonding and a lower incidence of PPD, both of which could indirectly result in a "happier" baby.

Sooooo, in theory, maybe the really well-nourished mothers - and particularly those whose mothers were also well-nourished, so they had good pelvic development - would both have easier births and easier babies, for the same reason - good nutrition.

I dunno. Sorta makes sense, but I think there are probably heaps of factors which contribute to a baby's temperament - not least parental perception. One woman's fussy baby is another woman's easy baby, because we all have different levels of stress and sleep deprivation and expectations of parenthood and so on!

FWIW, my birth with DD was traumatic for me, but I don't know how much that affected her. I would have had stress hormones galore coursing through my body, but I was only induced with prostoglandin gel, so she didn't get the mega-Pitocin contractions. Fairly short pushing stage, skin-to-skin and breastfeeding afterwards. As a baby... well, she was perfectly happy most of the time, as long as I was holding her. If not, well, no.

If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is offline  
#19 of 41 Old 10-26-2010, 10:50 AM
 
MsBlack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: SE MO
Posts: 3,609
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CI Mama View Post
I don't think there's any "one thing" that determines someone's temperament. I see temperament/personality as a complex stew of biological and environmental factors, plus something else (karma? divine intervention? whole-is-bigger-than-sum-of-the-parts something? I don't really know what).

I tend to agree with you that theories of this kind are BS. There is a persistent strain of psychology that is intent on blaming the mother for anything "wrong" with the kid. This just looks like the latest variation on that theme.
I agree totally with your first paragraph quoted, CI Mama. Personality is MUCH more than the result of any one experience. And I firmly believe that all of our children come into our wombs with already being a 'person'--with a given nature (and possibly, as some religions claim, with a past-life set of circumstances to process in this life). Now, that given nature is going to be subject to influences, of course, in the way it's expressed--but what some babies find upsetting, others might enjoy--or just don't much respond to it, one way or another.

But I don't think, in this case, that anyone is trying to blame mamas per se. I mean, the 'theory' is that birth itself traumatizes babies. The 'blame' goes to nature--to the very design of birth.

Obviously, if the mother has a difficult birth, and thus has more stress hormones running around in her system than usual, her particular birth could potentially impact her particular baby with 'trauma', than babies of easier births. So perhaps this theory could be used in some cases to implicate moms in their babies' trauma.

Anyway, NO! I most definitely do NOT believe that birth itself is traumatic for babies--not by design. We have to remember that so much of what presents difficulties to those of us already born, is about beliefs and expectations. We all know that two mamas could have quite similar births with quite similar providers and outward circumstances, and while one mama is traumatized, the other is happy enough...the main differences lying in what they hoped for and expected, their agreement or disagreements with the way care was handled. But Babies do not yet have much by way of expectations. What is, is simply what is. Babies, in general, also live so very much in the present...so let's say that while navigating mama's pelvis during birth, there were bad moments--even some pain for baby (which by the way, I think is pretty unusual): as soon as that pain is gone, baby's chemistry shifts, all is well enough again. They are onto the present moment already, and generally not thinking about or reliving the moment of pain. When their chest is getting squeezed, it might not be comfortable but they don't need their torso to be free for breathing or digesting at that moment--so it is just a sensation, not necessarily judged as 'bad' because it's no threat.

Now of course, there CAN be real trauma for babies at birth--and it can effect them in body and mind/feelings, sometimes even for a long time. But right now I'm thinking of a birth I saw once: a fairly quick active labor with an experienced mama and dh. At the very end, there was a greater than average amount of squeeze on that baby's head and chest--delivery was slowish and sticky-ish. Baby was born very dark blue. Normal heart rate, but very blue and 'low response' (not 'none', but slow to start breathing/moving). Parents and mw gave that baby a lot of stim in the first couple minutes--such as firmly flicking the bottom of the baby's feet (surely it stung! and was repeated a few times in those minutes). Parents were quite certain that only such stim was needed and the baby did come around nicely. Parents continued their encouragement and also physical stim until baby was crying heartily--and rather than comforting her immediately, they let her cry (they were holding her of course, talking to her--but saying 'that's great, you cry now, that's what we need'). Anyway--baby pinked up, calmed down....and from that moment forward was the calmest happiest baby.

Anyway, from physiological signs, surely that birth was a little traumatic for baby. And still--NOT traumatic in the sense of a clinging distress, baby-PTSD, nothing like that. Parents kind of joked after, that it wasn't the peaceful birth they hoped for--but hey, life is sometimes a bit rough and that's the way it is--the point is to move on through it. And even that, I believe, had a positive effect on their baby's dealing with a couple of really uncomfortable minutes during birth/after: THEY were not traumatized, not for themselves OR on their baby's behalf. Because they were never distressed by it, no one passed along the biochemicals of distress (through the milk, or their pheromones...) nor any other behaviors of distress. Because for them, it was just 'baby's first big adventure--happily achieved in spite of some scary moments', they did not communicate anything but the calm, joyous love that any baby benefits from. And baby, being a baby, just moved on as babies do so well--having every reason for contentment in the present.

Birth, I think, is meant to be stimulating to babies--in positive, health-serving ways. But to say that it is necessarily and by design 'traumatic' to babies just has no basis in fact whatsoever. Trauma can occur for some babies, yes--and that is due either to unusual factors of mama's birth (natural/unavoidable) or caused by poor care for mama/baby (which is a very big topic--not for this discussion).

As some have pointed out, a mama might be pretty traumized by a difficult birth--and yet babies can come out peacefully and ready for the world anyway.

Porcelina--I hope you will encourage your mom to shift the focus of her studies! Having more thoughtful psychotherapists studying birth trauma for moms and babies can be a very good thing, IMO. But I don't believe that any moms/babies are going to be helped by promoting a theory that birth is inherently traumatic. Now, studying the factors that CAN make for the experience of trauma, that would be great

In fact, you can pm me if your mom would like to talk to a birth professional about this topic in physiological and psychological terms...and a mom of 6 with anecdotes to share, too
MsBlack is offline  
#20 of 41 Old 10-26-2010, 12:59 PM
 
mmaramba's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 261
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
In a lot of tribal societies, births were easy and quick UNTIL processed foods were introduced - white sugar, white flour and so on.

Funny how that coincided with colonialism-- which I'm sure had nothing to do with maldistribution of resources, increased stress, etc.
mmaramba is offline  
#21 of 41 Old 10-26-2010, 04:57 PM
 
CherryBomb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 8,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lach View Post
I think that birth is SUPPOSED to be pretty traumatic for babies, so I'm not sure I buy into that. Babies are made to bend in strange ways so that they can fit through the birth canal. I can't imagine that it's particularly pleasant to have your skull be in multiple pieces so it can squish together and make it out of Mom. And don't forget that going through the birth canal is supposed to be a REALLY tight fit, and one of the frequent complications with C sections is that the baby doesn't get all the fluid squeezed out of her. I mean, when you're saying that it's a GOOD thing that the baby is squeezed so tightly that her lungs are completely compressed and anything in them has to come out, you're definitely not talking "fun times." Then there are mom hormones and baby hormones designed to race through them, and that can't be entirely pleasant.

If any of us, as adults, recreated a birth experience we'd most likely end up dead!

I think that births can range from easy to traumatic for Mom... but I kind of have the feeling that as far as the baby is concerned, birth ranges from traumatic to very traumatic. Luckily, they have very, very short memories!
So true!

I don't buy into this theory at all.
CherryBomb is offline  
#22 of 41 Old 10-26-2010, 05:00 PM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,610
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Funny how that coincided with colonialism-- which I'm sure had nothing to do with maldistribution of resources, increased stress, etc.
Er... yes? What's your point? I don't imagine colonialism interfered with the availability of traditional foods for a while - most traditional foods weren't valued by white men, which is why they introduced their own. So I doubt the colonists were scooping up all the fermented roots and shellfish and sour porridges. It was probably more of an availability/novelty/"charity" thing. White sugar is convenient and addictive: you introduce it, trade with it, people will eat it.

I suppose stress due to colonialism could certainly have had an effect on labours, but I dunno... do you have any specific evidence on that? It seems a bit generalised. One of the societies WAP studied was an Inuit tribe, where Europeans were hardly crowding in. Western food was available, and medical care when necessary, but it wasn't exactly what I'd call colonialism - the Westerners were mostly researchers and scientists, not colonists. The women laboured at home and were often brought in to the medical station after days of labour, as opposed to their previous very quick births. It's hard to imagine that the women were having difficulty because they were stressed about their native customs being absorbed by Western culture while they were in the middle of labour.

If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is offline  
#23 of 41 Old 10-27-2010, 12:44 PM
 
babyjelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Layton, Utah
Posts: 472
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
My babies' birth seemed to be influenced by their temperaments- as percieved by their movements and sleep/wakefulness patterns in the womb- rather than their temperaments being affected by birth...
Posted via Mobile Device

Jenny (27) partner to Michael (28) mama to Zoe (8) Selene (4) Garvin (2) and baby Gwendolyn (born 14 Jan 2011)
babyjelly is offline  
#24 of 41 Old 10-27-2010, 12:59 PM
 
Catubodua's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 1,452
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
my personal opinion - since you can't go back and test this theory, it's not worth much to try to "prove" it. i.e. - we can't go back in time and also have my son's birth go smoothly and easily for him, so how can we prove that the only difference in how his personality might develop is related to how he was born? you can't watch the same baby in two different worlds/lives to see how each develops when every single thing in their lives are the same except for their birth experience.

now, having said all that - my son had a difficult labor, stressful induction, emergency c-section birth and he's the happiest, calmest, easiest baby. our only issue with him (and it's our issue, not his) is he likes to be awake and participating in everything which means he's not a good sleeper. he's perfectly happy being awake and wanting to play at 3am. we're not so thrilled about it!

mom to Andrew   born Feb 6th, already a mom to child with fur; and still missing and still wondering about the lost possibilities Mar 17, 2009
Catubodua is offline  
#25 of 41 Old 10-27-2010, 01:48 PM
 
wombatclay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: running the red queen's race
Posts: 14,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
baby one- long back labor, 32+ hours, eventual c/s. She was "high needs" but generally happy, slept well, loved interacting with others, all that.

baby two- twelve hour "textbook" labor that ended in a VBAC but there was shoulder dystocia, a 4th degree tear, and scary low apgars. She was beyond high needs, eventually diagnosed with sensory processing disorder and anxiety issues. The medical opinion was that oxygen deprivation at birth may have played a role, but that it wouldn't have been the "main" cause of her emotional/psychological/interactive needs.

baby three- insane, fast, screaming labor roughly 4.5 hours from first contraction to baby. And I was starting from a long/hard/closed cervix at that! Anotther VBAC, no dystocia or oxygen dep. But despite the fast and furious pace of labor he is a laid back, mellow, meatball of a kid.

So at least for me... birth experience doesn't pan out all that much. But there is a book/website (Cesarean Voices) that your mom may be interested in. It sort of examines the impact cesareans have on the developing psycology of an individual, and the impact that different types of cesareans (labor vs non-labor) have. Just google "cesarean voices" and you'll find the site!

Be pretty! Be practical! Be Pagan! Visit Pagan Hearth & Home!
 mama to lady.gif(4/05), hearts.gif(6/07vbac), diaper.gif(8/09vbac), and babygirl.gif (9/11vbac)

wombatclay is offline  
#26 of 41 Old 10-27-2010, 02:01 PM
 
JamieCatheryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SW Pa
Posts: 5,105
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
I doubt it shapes them very much, but what things are like the first hours or weeks probably have an effect for at least several months.

For example, with my first the first day was in the hospital, me grouchy and uncomfortable, being interrupted and scolded all the time by nurses. We were sent to the lab daily for the first week after birth for tests (jaundice). Breastfeeding didn't get a good start and was a struggle, DS1 never has gone to sleep well. And he's a hothead for sure. The labor was long but uncomplicated.

DS2 was a homebirth, another long but uncomplicated labor, very intense 2nd stage. His first hour was spent nursing, cord not yet cut, newborn exam put off then done gently. Then we slept in my own bed, comfy and cozy, practically stayed there for a week. He's always been pretty laid back and joyful, and *loves* to nurse and to eat.
JamieCatheryn is online now  
#27 of 41 Old 10-27-2010, 02:51 PM
 
Pirogi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 964
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I agree with Ms. Black. Birth isn't inherently traumatic for babies. I do believe that in some cases the Westernized medical model of birth can be traumatic. But I would never blame a mother for a choice or acquiescence that led to medicalized obstetric care.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcparker View Post
I would bet money that just like it's been discovered that maternal antigens play a role in younger sons being more likely to be gay than older sons, there will be a discovery that the hormonal bath that #1 marinates in affects the hormonal bath that #2 marinates in.
Just wanted to comment on the article. The premise behind the theory is that maternal and fetal blood inevitably mix during birth, which creates an antibody response in the mother that may affect future sons. We know that this is not true, especially for physiological birth. Maternal and fetal blood does NOT inevitably mix. Sometimes, yes, but not always.
Pirogi is offline  
#28 of 41 Old 10-27-2010, 02:58 PM
 
Lady Lilya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 3,721
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I've read that when we feel the pain of labor, endorphins are released to help us cope, and are also released into the baby's blood stream. So, the baby is getting a natural pain relief.

Contrast that with experiences after the birth, like rough and callous treatment that some babies get at hospitals. (Did you all see the video on youtube of a nurse bathing a newborn? She was holding him under running water in the sink while he was sputtering and panicking, and she was roughly rubbing him with a coarse-looking rag.) Or perhaps painful medical issues like a surgery shortly after birth, or reflux, etc.

Leigh, mama to Rostislav homeborn Aug 9 2007, and Oksana homeborn Feb 24 2011.
Lady Lilya is offline  
#29 of 41 Old 10-28-2010, 03:33 PM
 
Litcrit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Belgrade, Serbia
Posts: 219
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
My personal whacky belief is that a baby's inborn temperament has an effect on how it is born.

My husband forced his mom into a c-section (he was huge, breech, the water broke and then there were no contractions for hours). He can be passive, difficult to get going, reluctant to change his environment.

I saved my mom from a scheduled c-section by storming out of her before anyone had any time to think. I think of myself as showing initiative and being sometimes rash and stubborn.
Litcrit is offline  
#30 of 41 Old 10-29-2010, 12:47 AM
 
bcblondie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 3,292
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
What if the temperment of the baby is the reason for the long, difficult labour?

ETA. Lol. Just read the previous post. I agree litcrit.

Mom to angel baby, grew wings at 5 weeks in May '07, William, born Dec '08, and another angel who grew wings at 8w4d (lost at 11w) in Oct '10. Rachel born Feb 2012, Another angel Lost Sept '13. New bean due Nov '14!
bcblondie is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off