I don't know where this should go but it just pissed me off! - Page 3 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 114 Old 05-08-2008, 02:52 PM
 
barefootpoetry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,676
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourlittlebirds View Post

And, if you believe that the hormonal process really does have nothing to do with bonding, what then do you conclude about women who do have difficulty bonding with their babies? Are they just bad people? Do they really just not want their babies bad enough? I had difficulty bonding with my firstborn and to varying other degree with another two out of my four children (who were all, incidently, born at home.) I guess there's just something wrong with me, huh?
Some people think that. Like not bonding with your baby is "punishing" it because you had a "bad experience."

I throw a wrench in the black-and-white scheme too, because I had a rotten C-section birth and yet my son and I bonded like Krazy Glue. There's exceptions to every rule, no one would be arrogant enough to say that there's not. At least I HOPE they wouldn't.
barefootpoetry is offline  
#62 of 114 Old 05-08-2008, 04:06 PM
 
LotusBirthMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The Land of Porky Goodness
Posts: 1,902
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipmummy View Post
no woman should be allowed to choose a cs. elective cs should be against the law. unless there is a real med or psych reason it should never be an option. I am so sick of this too posh to push thing an doc's CYA attitude. Enough is enough.
Oh.my.freaking.word.

Yes...no one should be allowed to choose how they birth....if it goes against what I personally believe to be right and morally superior.

Why on earth would it ever be a good thing to take away choice?
LotusBirthMama is offline  
#63 of 114 Old 05-08-2008, 04:19 PM
 
kimbie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipmummy View Post
no woman should be allowed to choose a cs. elective cs should be against the law. unless there is a real med or psych reason it should never be an option. I am so sick of this too posh to push thing an doc's CYA attitude. Enough is enough.
Why are statements like this allowed on MDC?
kimbie is offline  
#64 of 114 Old 05-08-2008, 04:33 PM
 
LotusBirthMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The Land of Porky Goodness
Posts: 1,902
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimbie View Post
Why are statements like this allowed on MDC?
Because, dontcha know, c-sections are the devil and its perfectly ok to bash anyone who ever even thought about having one, no matter the circumstances leading up that choice.
LotusBirthMama is offline  
#65 of 114 Old 05-08-2008, 05:11 PM
 
pookel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Catching more flies with honey
Posts: 3,899
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I always think of the story I read on an OB website, about whether to allow a patient an elective c-section because her baby was anencephalic and she wanted to be able to hold him while he was still alive. The consensus among the OBs was not to let her have the section. I think that's tragic, and it's tragic that anyone here might agree it's not her choice to make.
pookel is offline  
#66 of 114 Old 05-08-2008, 05:11 PM
 
pookel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Catching more flies with honey
Posts: 3,899
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unoppressed MAMA Q View Post
Goodness, that article sucks! Is anyone really walking around being nasty to people who've had sections?
"Walking around" maybe not .... hanging around message boards like this one? Oh, yes. Very much so.
pookel is offline  
#67 of 114 Old 05-08-2008, 05:14 PM
 
wombjuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,791
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LotusBirthMama View Post
Oh.my.freaking.word.

Yes...no one should be allowed to choose how they birth....if it goes against what I personally believe to be right and morally superior.

Why on earth would it ever be a good thing to take away choice?
Because elective cesareans (not medically necessary cesareans) HURT BABIES. They hurt babies, they hurt mothers, and they hurt society. They line the pockets of the wealthy and cost the poor in taxes.

I would go as far to say that elective cesareans are akin to plastic surgery, only far, far more dangerous.

Of course women should be allowed to choose where to birth. But choosing major abdominal surgery that risks all kinds of complications including DEATH TO MOTHER AND BABY for NO MEDICAL REASON should not be allowed to continue. It is NOT the norm in many, many other countries, and it should not be the norm here.

C-sections are no laughing matter, people. They are incredibly important when medically necessary and have saved many babies and mothers...but they are NOT normal and should NOT be seen as a normal way of giving birth. They are simply much too dangerous.

Sprat sleepytime.gif, Certified Professional Midwife, loved very much by Sprig reading.gif, the most open-minded, loving, gentle man in the world, and now Sprout fly-by-nursing1.gif walking, talking, how on earth is she this big?! Rainbow.gif on earth.gif begins with homebirth.jpg.

wombjuice is offline  
#68 of 114 Old 05-08-2008, 05:15 PM
 
JessicaS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 46,048
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
No one is attacking people for medically necessary c-sections. This is about *elective c-sections* which Mothering doesn't support.

Quote:
Mothering.com is the website of natural family living and advocates natural solutions to parenting challenges. We host discussion of nighttime parenting, loving discipline, natural birth, homebirth, successful breastfeeding, alternative and complementary home remedies, informed consent, and many other topics from a natural point of view. We are not interested, however, in hosting discussions on the merits of crying it out, physical punishment, formula feeding, elective cesarean section, routine infant medical circumcision, or mandatory vaccinations. We do not tolerate any type of discrimination in the discussions, including but not limited to racism, heterosexism, classism, religious bigotry, or discrimination toward the disabled. We will not host discussions that involve explicit sexual references and are cautious about discussions on volatile topics such as abortion, religion, and race.
No one is bashing everyone who had a c-section.

It is permitted to discuss the c-section rates and promote vaginal birth on Mothering. If people are taking offense just because posters on Mothering of all places are discussing vaginal birth maybe that is something they need to work out on their own.

Mothering promotes babies coming out of vaginas.

That doesn't mean anyone is saying anyone who has had a c-section has failed and it doesn't mean that it is saying that anyone who has had a c-section is a bad mom or doesn't belong here.

Crap happens. That doesn't mean suddenly it isn't ok to promote vaginal birth.

I had a c-section I am also currently having complications with this pregnancy and if the cord prolapses I will take whatever interventions necessary to save this child. I am not going to flip out just because people are saying babies should normally come out of vaginas.

Not all those who wander are lost 
JessicaS is offline  
#69 of 114 Old 05-08-2008, 05:16 PM
 
wombjuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,791
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pookel View Post
I always think of the story I read on an OB website, about whether to allow a patient an elective c-section because her baby was anencephalic and she wanted to be able to hold him while he was still alive. The consensus among the OBs was not to let her have the section. I think that's tragic, and it's tragic that anyone here might agree it's not her choice to make.
I would consider this a medically necessary reason to have a cesarean birth. I don't understand how anyone wouldn't.

Now, a mother who wants a cesarean section because she doesn't want to be pregnant for her best friend's wedding...a whole nother ball game.

Sprat sleepytime.gif, Certified Professional Midwife, loved very much by Sprig reading.gif, the most open-minded, loving, gentle man in the world, and now Sprout fly-by-nursing1.gif walking, talking, how on earth is she this big?! Rainbow.gif on earth.gif begins with homebirth.jpg.

wombjuice is offline  
#70 of 114 Old 05-08-2008, 05:21 PM - Thread Starter
 
Sara Badger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Grand Rapids MI
Posts: 248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjjazzy View Post
oh my goodness, i hope there doesn't come a time "when mothers make the vaginal-or-caesarean decision in the same way many now make the breast-or-bottle decision", although in some parts of the world, it's too late to say that.
I was think that too! Help us if it comes to that!
Sara Badger is offline  
#71 of 114 Old 05-08-2008, 05:25 PM
 
pookel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Catching more flies with honey
Posts: 3,899
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by feminine_earth View Post
I would consider this a medically necessary reason to have a cesarean birth. I don't understand how anyone wouldn't.
Because technically, a c-section that is not done in an emergency situation is always an "elective c-section." That's how doctors define it. It's all well and good for you to say that scheduling a c-section to plan your vacation days is wrong, but if you get an actual law passed which bans "elective c-sections," you will affect not just women who are "too posh to push," but also those who just want to spend a few extra minutes with their dying babies. The law can't make a distinction between good elective c-sections and bad ones, so if you ban some, you'd have to ban them all.

If you want to reduce elective c-sections, you have to convince women not to have them - you shouldn't do it by taking their choice away.
pookel is offline  
#72 of 114 Old 05-08-2008, 05:29 PM
 
pookel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Catching more flies with honey
Posts: 3,899
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by abimommy View Post
No one is attacking people for medically necessary c-sections. This is about *elective c-sections* which Mothering doesn't support.
Can you answer something for me? I've never been clear on Mothering's definition of "elective c-sections." Obviously, you're against c-sections for the hell of it. But scheduled c-sections for medical reasons are often classed as "elective c-sections" as well. My scheduled repeat section was an ERCS even though my OB said I wasn't a VBAC candidate; was that elective or wasn't it? Where does Mothering draw the line?

I would hope, also, that a discussion of whether elective c-sections should be legal isn't construed as a promotion of them, any more than a discussion about decriminalizing drugs is a promotion of drug use.
pookel is offline  
#73 of 114 Old 05-08-2008, 05:29 PM
 
JessicaS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 46,048
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pookel View Post
Because technically, a c-section that is not done in an emergency situation is always an "elective c-section." That's how doctors define it. It's all well and good for you to say that scheduling a c-section to plan your vacation days is wrong, but if you get an actual law passed which bans "elective c-sections," you will affect not just women who are "too posh to push," but also those who just want to spend a few extra minutes with their dying babies. The law can't make a distinction between good elective c-sections and bad ones, so if you ban some, you'd have to ban them all.

If you want to reduce elective c-sections, you have to convince women not to have them - you shouldn't do it by taking their choice away.
That isn't how it is defined here.

Not all those who wander are lost 
JessicaS is offline  
#74 of 114 Old 05-08-2008, 05:30 PM
 
pookel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Catching more flies with honey
Posts: 3,899
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by abimommy View Post
That isn't how it is defined here.
"Here" being Mothering, or US law, or what?

My point was that, AFAIK, US doctors class all non-emergent c-sections as "elective." So if you pass a law saying "elective c-sections may not be performed," doctors will not be allowed to perform c-sections which we all agree are reasonable.
pookel is offline  
#75 of 114 Old 05-08-2008, 05:30 PM
 
wombjuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,791
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I did not say they should be banned. I said they should not be the norm here. Please do not put words in my mouth.

Sprat sleepytime.gif, Certified Professional Midwife, loved very much by Sprig reading.gif, the most open-minded, loving, gentle man in the world, and now Sprout fly-by-nursing1.gif walking, talking, how on earth is she this big?! Rainbow.gif on earth.gif begins with homebirth.jpg.

wombjuice is offline  
#76 of 114 Old 05-08-2008, 05:31 PM
 
JessicaS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 46,048
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pookel View Post
Can you answer something for me? I've never been clear on Mothering's definition of "elective c-sections." Obviously, you're against c-sections for the hell of it. But scheduled c-sections for medical reasons are often classed as "elective c-sections" as well. My scheduled repeat section was an ERCS even though my OB said I wasn't a VBAC candidate; was that elective or wasn't it? Where does Mothering draw the line?

I would hope, also, that a discussion of whether elective c-sections should be legal isn't construed as a promotion of them, any more than a discussion about decriminalizing drugs is a promotion of drug use.
They are defined as "c-sections for the hell of it" or planned c-sections for NO reason.

MDC doesn't qualify planned c-sections for a medical reason to be "elective"

Not all those who wander are lost 
JessicaS is offline  
#77 of 114 Old 05-08-2008, 05:32 PM
 
pookel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Catching more flies with honey
Posts: 3,899
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by feminine_earth View Post
I did not say they should be banned. I said they should not be the norm here. Please do not put words in my mouth.
Sorry, looking back I see it was hipmummy who said that. It's her argument I have a problem with.
pookel is offline  
#78 of 114 Old 05-08-2008, 05:32 PM
 
JessicaS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 46,048
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pookel View Post
"Here" being Mothering, or US law, or what?

My point was that, AFAIK, US doctors class all non-emergent c-sections as "elective." So if you pass a law saying "elective c-sections may not be performed," doctors will not be allowed to perform c-sections which we all agree are reasonable.
We keep cross posting.

By "here" I meant "Mothering"

Not all those who wander are lost 
JessicaS is offline  
#79 of 114 Old 05-08-2008, 05:33 PM
 
LotusBirthMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The Land of Porky Goodness
Posts: 1,902
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Wow. Ok. I guess I am just shocked that a forum dedicated to unassisted childbirth, which is statistically not as safe as attended childbirth, home or otherwise, would be so agreeable to legislation to limit choice and freedom in birth.
LotusBirthMama is offline  
#80 of 114 Old 05-08-2008, 05:34 PM
 
pookel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Catching more flies with honey
Posts: 3,899
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by abimommy View Post
We keep cross posting.

By "here" I meant "Mothering"
Yeah, I decided I was just going to stop until you were done responding, to sort things out. I was mostly trying to make a point about US law and how banning "elective c-sections" doesn't mean what people here would think of it as meaning.

Thank you for clarifying the MDC definition; I've never been sure whether it was acceptable to talk about my ERCS here.
pookel is offline  
#81 of 114 Old 05-08-2008, 05:35 PM
 
wombjuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,791
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LotusBirthMama View Post
Wow. Ok. I guess I am just shocked that a forum dedicated to unassisted childbirth, which is statistically not as safe as attended childbirth, home or otherwise, would be so agreeable to legislation to limit choice and freedom in birth.
Oh my. This thread is going dangerously off topic.

Sprat sleepytime.gif, Certified Professional Midwife, loved very much by Sprig reading.gif, the most open-minded, loving, gentle man in the world, and now Sprout fly-by-nursing1.gif walking, talking, how on earth is she this big?! Rainbow.gif on earth.gif begins with homebirth.jpg.

wombjuice is offline  
#82 of 114 Old 05-08-2008, 05:35 PM
 
pookel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Catching more flies with honey
Posts: 3,899
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LotusBirthMama View Post
Wow. Ok. I guess I am just shocked that a forum dedicated to unassisted childbirth,
*looks at forum header*

Whoops, I didn't see we were in the UC forum. Sometimes I just see things pop up in New Posts. Didn't mean to invade.
pookel is offline  
#83 of 114 Old 05-08-2008, 05:36 PM
 
JessicaS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 46,048
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LotusBirthMama View Post
Wow. Ok. I guess I am just shocked that a forum dedicated to unassisted childbirth, which is statistically not as safe as attended childbirth, home or otherwise, would be so agreeable to legislation to limit choice and freedom in birth.
I don't believe I used the word "legislation" in my post

Not all those who wander are lost 
JessicaS is offline  
#84 of 114 Old 05-08-2008, 05:40 PM
 
JessicaS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 46,048
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pookel View Post
*looks at forum header*

Whoops, I didn't see we were in the UC forum. Sometimes I just see things pop up in New Posts. Didn't mean to invade.
Yeah the New Posts function is fun like that.

This really belongs in B&B though.

Not all those who wander are lost 
JessicaS is offline  
#85 of 114 Old 05-08-2008, 05:40 PM
 
LotusBirthMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The Land of Porky Goodness
Posts: 1,902
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by abimommy View Post
I don't believe I used the word "legislation" in my post
Back up. Did I say "Abimommy said...?" No. I am referring to the poster who said elective c/ses should be illegal. Which involves legislation, no?
LotusBirthMama is offline  
#86 of 114 Old 05-08-2008, 05:48 PM
 
JessicaS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 46,048
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LotusBirthMama View Post
Back up. Did I say "Abimommy said...?" No. I am referring to the poster who said elective c/ses should be illegal. Which involves legislation, no?
You said

Quote:
Wow. Ok. I guess I am just shocked that a forum dedicated to unassisted childbirth, which is statistically not as safe as attended childbirth, home or otherwise, would be so agreeable to legislation to limit choice and freedom in birth.
Which implies a consensus. I only saw one person state that, but I did skip a page.


Oh and I am moving this to B&B

Not all those who wander are lost 
JessicaS is offline  
#87 of 114 Old 05-08-2008, 06:18 PM
 
LotusBirthMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The Land of Porky Goodness
Posts: 1,902
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
And I only saw one other person say that limiting someone else's birth choice may not be the wisest move for birth freedom in general.
LotusBirthMama is offline  
#88 of 114 Old 05-08-2008, 06:21 PM
 
JessicaS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 46,048
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pookel View Post
Yeah, I decided I was just going to stop until you were done responding, to sort things out. I was mostly trying to make a point about US law and how banning "elective c-sections" doesn't mean what people here would think of it as meaning.

Thank you for clarifying the MDC definition; I've never been sure whether it was acceptable to talk about my ERCS here.
Even if you did have an elective c-section you could discuss it, it would really depend on the context.

I don't mean you have to run around kicking yourself for it but you could post your birth story and such. It wouldn't be good to run amok suggesting everyone have a c-section for no reason (oh and get a tummy tuck at the same time!!) but a c-section doesn't mean you have to wear a scarlet letter of vagina failure on your profile.

Even Ina May Gaskin has transferred people, it doesn't always go perfect. That doesn't mean anyone fails.

Not all those who wander are lost 
JessicaS is offline  
#89 of 114 Old 05-08-2008, 06:23 PM
 
pookel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Catching more flies with honey
Posts: 3,899
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by abimommy View Post
but a c-section doesn't mean you have to wear a scarlet letter of vagina failure on your profile.
pookel is offline  
#90 of 114 Old 05-08-2008, 06:28 PM
 
felix23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: on a peaceful pond
Posts: 1,459
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unoppressed MAMA Q View Post
Goodness, that article sucks! Is anyone really walking around being nasty to people who've had sections?
Yes. I've had to cut ties with several crunchy friends because of how nasty they were about my c-section and the fact that due to the type of cut I have I am not comfortable (and neither is my dr) having a vbac. Even mainstream people go on and on about how it "must of been the worst experience in my life". Um, no and calling the birth of my child the worst experience is kind of insulting. Actually having my wisdom teeth removed was the worst experience in my life. But for some reason most people don't want to believe that I wasn't traumatized by my c-section.

Never jump into a pile of leaves with a wet sucker. - Linus
felix23 is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
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