to each their own

PJ_Soul

dignin said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

dignin said:

I guess in my mind people who schedule c-sections for non medical reasons are idiots.

I was referring to this^^^

I stand by that post given the evidence presented in this thread.

I don't understand why you give a shit either way. What difference does it make? I personally couldn't give a flying fuck about how women get the babies out of them as long as it's legal.

MayDay10

Im, just strange with some superstitions.

If it was random and my kid was born on the 13th, I wouldnt 'mind'. Scheduling a birth on the 13th, my mind would play tricks on me and I would insists its a bad omen and get very anxious.

PJ_Soul

I've read that horoscopes/astrological signs don't apply to c-section babies.... whatever the fuck that means. 8-}

I'm not a Taurus. I'm a nothing. :P

oftenreading

PJ_Soul said:

dignin said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

dignin said:

I guess in my mind people who schedule c-sections for non medical reasons are idiots.

I was referring to this^^^

I stand by that post given the evidence presented in this thread.

I don't understand why you give a shit either way. What difference does it make? I personally couldn't give a flying fuck about how women get the babies out of them as long as it's legal.

I can't speak for dignin, but personally I care because it is an important aspect of maternal and fetal/infant health.

PJ_Soul

oftenreading said:

PJ_Soul said:

dignin said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

dignin said:

I guess in my mind people who schedule c-sections for non medical reasons are idiots.

I was referring to this^^^

I stand by that post given the evidence presented in this thread.

I don't understand why you give a shit either way. What difference does it make? I personally couldn't give a flying fuck about how women get the babies out of them as long as it's legal.

I can't speak for dignin, but personally I care because it is an important aspect of maternal and fetal/infant health.

Well, obviously. I meant that assuming we're talking about methods that don't harm people. And legal c-sections don't actually really increase risk to mother or baby. It's complications related to non-elective/emergency c-sections that increase risk to health.

One nice thing about c-section births are that the babies don't have those fucked up oblong head shapes right after they're born. That looks really weird to me, lol. It kind of reduces the possible cuteness of a newborn human baby.

hedonist

You mention head shape...neither my sister nor I were born via C-section.

The doctors marveled at how perfectly shaped my sister's head was (and it was, dammit).

As for me? Mine looked like a goddamned eggplant :-L

I really had no idea there was such debate over methodology.

rr165892

PJ_Soul said:

dignin said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

dignin said:

I guess in my mind people who schedule c-sections for non medical reasons are idiots.

I was referring to this^^^

I stand by that post given the evidence presented in this thread.

I don't understand why you give a shit either way. What difference does it make? I personally couldn't give a flying fuck about how women get the babies out of them as long as it's legal.

Here,here PJ short and sweet.

dignin

PJ_Soul said:

oftenreading said:

PJ_Soul said:

dignin said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

dignin said:

I guess in my mind people who schedule c-sections for non medical reasons are idiots.

I was referring to this^^^

I stand by that post given the evidence presented in this thread.

I don't understand why you give a shit either way. What difference does it make? I personally couldn't give a flying fuck about how women get the babies out of them as long as it's legal.

I can't speak for dignin, but personally I care because it is an important aspect of maternal and fetal/infant health.

Well, obviously. I meant that assuming we're talking about methods that don't harm people. And legal c-sections don't actually really increase risk to mother or baby. It's complications related to non-elective/emergency c-sections that increase risk to health.

Have you read anything I (and others) have posted regarding this topic? I feel like you haven't.

For one thing having a c-section is more expensive. http://transform.childbirthconnection.org/resources/datacenter/chargeschart/

Given that my tax dollars go toward these elective procedures I should give a flying fuck and you should to.

And the evidence is mounting that vaginal birthed babys have less health problems. Which in turn makes them less of a burden on our health care system. Saving money.

I will say it again, I have no problem with c-sections when necessary. They save lives and that is awesome.

PJ_Soul

I don't believe for one single second that healthy c-section babies (i.e. excluding complications that resulted in a c-section) have worse health though. I look at that theory as utter bullshit, kind of like all that crap about how circumcision reduces sex drive. (Yes, I've read much of the thread)

I already pay for everyone else's kids' education, and i don't mind paying my share of taxes for child birth costs either. I have a lot more shit to be concerned about than that when it comes to where my tax dollars are going. I think if a woman really wants a c-section for whatever reason she deserves to be able to do it, since no one else should be dictating or criticizing how another woman chooses to give birth to her own children. I file this in the "it's none of your damned business" folder.

pickupyourwill

...

dignin

PJ_Soul said:

I don't believe for one single second that healthy c-section babies (i.e. excluding complications that resulted in a c-section) have worse health though. I look at that theory as utter bullshit, kind of like all that crap about how circumcision reduces sex drive. (Yes, I've read much of the thread)

I already pay for everyone else's kids' education, and i don't mind paying my share of taxes for child birth costs either. I have a lot more shit to be concerned about than that when it comes to where my tax dollars are going. I think if a woman really wants a c-section for whatever reason she deserves to be able to do it, since no one else should be dictating or criticizing how another woman chooses to give birth to her own children. I file this in the "it's none of your damned business" folder.

Oh wow. You are so far off base I'm not even going to bother. Evidence be damned.

oftenreading

PJ_Soul said:

I don't believe for one single second that healthy c-section babies (i.e. excluding complications that resulted in a c-section) have worse health though. I look at that theory as utter bullshit, kind of like all that crap about how circumcision reduces sex drive. (Yes, I've read much of the thread)

I already pay for everyone else's kids' education, and i don't mind paying my share of taxes for child birth costs either. I have a lot more shit to be concerned about than that when it comes to where my tax dollars are going. I think if a woman really wants a c-section for whatever reason she deserves to be able to do it, since no one else should be dictating or criticizing how another woman chooses to give birth to her own children. I file this in the "it's none of your damned business" folder.

What sources of information are you basing your opinion on, PJ_Soul? There are some fairly well established drawbacks to elective C-section, for both baby and mother. Giving people facts doesn't make it a criticism.

Although planned cesarean deliveries carry a lower chance of hemorrhage, they are also linked to risks for bladder and bowel injury, longer hospital stays, higher infection rates, and increased neonatal respiratory morbidity. Moreover, rates of postpartum pelvic pain, sexual dysfunction, pelvic organ prolapse, and depression — which some women hope to avoid via surgical delivery — remain unchanged.

ACOG emphasizes that surgical delivery be especially avoided in women planning to have several children because subsequent cesarean deliveries are tied to increasing risks for complications, such as placenta previa or accreta, uterine rupture, and emergency hysterectomy

(Drawn from ACOG guidelines, 2013)

PJ_Soul

dignin said:

PJ_Soul said:

I don't believe for one single second that healthy c-section babies (i.e. excluding complications that resulted in a c-section) have worse health though. I look at that theory as utter bullshit, kind of like all that crap about how circumcision reduces sex drive. (Yes, I've read much of the thread)

I already pay for everyone else's kids' education, and i don't mind paying my share of taxes for child birth costs either. I have a lot more shit to be concerned about than that when it comes to where my tax dollars are going. I think if a woman really wants a c-section for whatever reason she deserves to be able to do it, since no one else should be dictating or criticizing how another woman chooses to give birth to her own children. I file this in the "it's none of your damned business" folder.

Oh wow. You are so far off base I'm not even going to bother. Evidence be damned.

What part do you think is off base in that post?

PJ_Soul

oftenreading said:

PJ_Soul said:

I don't believe for one single second that healthy c-section babies (i.e. excluding complications that resulted in a c-section) have worse health though. I look at that theory as utter bullshit, kind of like all that crap about how circumcision reduces sex drive. (Yes, I've read much of the thread)

I already pay for everyone else's kids' education, and i don't mind paying my share of taxes for child birth costs either. I have a lot more shit to be concerned about than that when it comes to where my tax dollars are going. I think if a woman really wants a c-section for whatever reason she deserves to be able to do it, since no one else should be dictating or criticizing how another woman chooses to give birth to her own children. I file this in the "it's none of your damned business" folder.

What sources of information are you basing your opinion on, PJ_Soul? There are some fairly well established drawbacks to elective C-section, for both baby and mother. Giving people facts doesn't make it a criticism.

Although planned cesarean deliveries carry a lower chance of hemorrhage, they are also linked to risks for bladder and bowel injury, longer hospital stays, higher infection rates, and increased neonatal respiratory morbidity. Moreover, rates of postpartum pelvic pain, sexual dysfunction, pelvic organ prolapse, and depression — which some women hope to avoid via surgical delivery — remain unchanged.

ACOG emphasizes that surgical delivery be especially avoided in women planning to have several children because subsequent cesarean deliveries are tied to increasing risks for complications, such as placenta previa or accreta, uterine rupture, and emergency hysterectomy

(Drawn from ACOG guidelines, 2013)

Mothers are made aware of the risks, just like everyone who is undergoing surgery is. The decision is the mother's, so none of my beeswax.

oftenreading

This article from the Globe and Mail on the enormously high rate of C-sections in Brazil caught my eye and reminded me of this earlier thread. The pro-C section doctors quoted in the article don't come off looking very good, although I'm sure there are other factors at work, too, some of which they mention (lack of hospital rooms for labouring women that are not operating rooms) and some of which are larger societal attitudes. I was already aware that Brazil was very pro-surgery; apparently they have the highest rate of cosmetic surgery in the world, and this may be viewed in the same vein.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/pushing-for-change-in-brazils-cesarean-reliant-birthing-culture/article22616617/

callen

How many billion Billion of us are there? Fuck deliver during skydiving. I don't give a fuck.

catefrances

Giving birth to my first daughter was the worst experience of my life. I was 21 clueless and thouht doctors knew it all.. I can't tell you how wrong I was. I was confined to the bed, hooked up yo an IV cause I was induced. She was a vaginal birth. My 2nd daughter was a little better due to being given an epidural, but yet again my mobility was limited. Yet again i was induced. Fast forward 9 years and my son was born(almost in the elevator on the way up to the labour suites) without any drugs. I spent the whole time walking the halls of the maternity ward, knowing this would help diminish the pain. Less than 2 years later I was seriously hoping #4 would drop at home. She didnt, but was born, like all her sibs in hospital and again like all of them, vaginally.and like her Big brother,drug free.
For me I finally felt I got the birth thing down the way I wanted it.... drug free within an environment where if anything did go awry(thank the universe nothing did) id be in competant hands.
my daughter on the otherhand delivered her child by caesarean and being in the theatre with her and despite being the one to cut my grand daughters cord it is not a position id ever want to find myself in. But hey who knows what can happen..... childbirth can be an unpredictable situation and whatever needs to be done to get that baby out and lessen the risk to the mother(and baby) is what needs to be done.

pickupyourwill

...

pickupyourwill

...

rr165892

callen wrote: »

How many billion Billion of us are there? Fuck deliver during skydiving. I don't give a fuck.

I don't not want random afterbirth falling from the sky while careless skydivers give birth and it falls on my vehicles paint job.Pollen and love bugs are hard enough to remove.Afterbirth is just a whole different level of dirty.

How do you get a chute harness on a newborn?