I think that polkadot might be reading too much (or in one sense, not enough) into 'normal' births.
There is a very specific definition used in obstetric statistics:
<a class="break-all" href="http://www.birthchoiceuk.com/BirthChoiceUKFrame.htm?www.birthchoiceuk.com/NormalExplain.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">A "normal birth" has been defined as one which starts naturally and does not involve any medical or technological intervention. This definition would therefore exclude births which involve induction, acceleration, medical pain relief (including epidurals), forceps, ventouse, a Caesarean or an episiotomy.
This means that my otherwise entirely uncomplicated home birth was NOT 'normal' by this definition because I had an episiotomy. I have also been induced following an intra-uterine death - definitely not normal. Next week, I expect to be induced due to complications with this baby. That will not be normal.
My experiences don't mean that we shouldn't try to improve labour care for women all round and it doesn't mean that there isn't a very appropriate place for medical interventions for some mothers. The issue is ensuring that these are done no more and no less than what is appropriate.
"Hmmm in all my years of wearing contacts I 've never actually heard the word "normal" used,there are far too many variables."
Incidentally, normal vision is 20/20 vision (although we actually do in metric measurements now, so it is 6/6 vision).