Historically were women petrified of being pregnant due to childbirth?

[Buttercupsandpoppys]

As the title says. Mortality rates weren’t great with so many women dying during labour.

I know there was so much pressure to have children as a women. In period dramas and books/films you see women desperate to ‘provide sons’. But if they knew death was so likely, wouldn’t they be petrified at the very thought of pregnancy?

im suprised history isn’t full of women just point blank refusing sex/marriage and all having to be publicly dragged kicking and screaming knowing pregnancy was practically a flipping of the coin between life and death.

I honestly think I’d have tried any and every trick in the book to avoid it. Even making myself as unattractive as possible so no kind would wish to marry me!

Anyone have any knowledge of this?

Yet some people seem to think doing it the old fashioned way and rejecting medical assistance is a good choice...

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5118385-to-ask-if-you-free-birthed

I think I saw the same programme, how sad that was. If I remember the experts deduced from the baby's positions that only one was born successfully, the others were still in utero when the mother died. Archaeologists call it a "coffin birth"

I think you’ve interpreted the information from the graph the wrong way round. The very pale yellow colour that covers the map for now = less than 1% of 1,000 births ending in maternal deaths. The map becomes increasingly red the further you go back over the centuries = higher rates of maternal deaths.

Social attitudes and religion played a big part. Keeping women ignorant and lacking in choices. It's still happening in many parts of the world.

This is total rubbish, I have asked my retired midwife friend how many births would be straightforward even if there was no midwife, and she said as long as there was someone else there to support the baby's head and check the chord wasn't around its neck, then more than 75%. This is after 50 years in the job! And most of the rest are fine too, but do need a midwife to intervene in some way

Sorry but your friend is talking total rubbish.

Also ex midwife here.

That's so interesting. Is that why she looks pregnant in the painting?

Yes. Many were slaves or whores, or concubines or wives. All were treated with contempt.

Slaves, whores and concubines were terrified of getting pregnant because their children would belong to whoever owned or kept them.

My maternal DGGM had 13 DCs! I imagine she had no choice in it, it was relatively common place and of course there was less money as more DC were born. She must have been terrified and miserable. It's really upsetting.

My paternal DGGM was having none of it (she was part of a huge family) and said at the outset in 1916 she was having 2. She wanted and got further education and professional careers for her DC. As my DGGF was skilled they bought a house, went on holidays and had a much better life.

Do you know any history?
Women of all classes were married off at a young age. No (or minimal) education.
No contraception available apart from a vinegar-soaked sponge that had to be inserted before sex, so if your DH came home pissed and decided he wanted a shag, you were fucked, in all senses of the word. Or an animal skin condom, but blokes tended only to use them in extremis and with a prostitute.
Then there's the rifeness of STIs; affecting all classes and often the baby
Bear in mind too, that women were owned by the men in their life. Why do you think a father 'gives away' the daughter in the wedding ceremony. She then became the posession of her husband. No opportunity to earn her own money, be educated, or do whatcshe wanted.
If the husband wanted sex, he had it. Rape was legal within marriage until relatively recently.
So, no, you wouldn't be acting with you 2024 freedoms and attitudes 'back in the day'. But you should know that

I put that on my birth plan too but I don't know how realistic it was - I think there are circumstances where the baby is too far down for a section and it has to be instrumental?

(I was lucky and didn't need either)

That's interesting. My great great grandmother was born at the lying in hospital in Islington in 1860. I wonder whether her birth was dangerous/traumatic and that's why, unusually for the time, she was an only child.

From the map, the earliest UK stats are 1850, and it looks like 500 maternal deaths per 100k live births. That's 50 per 10k, or 5 per 1,000, or 0.5%. So 1 in 200. First births would be the riskiest. Someone correct me if I'm wrong as I'm in a rush.

There is a wonderful book called something like 'The Midwife's Tale: The Life of Martha Ballard's about a midwife in Maine in the early 1800s. She was pretty clearly very skilled and had very low maternal mortality.

Edited to correct my numbers.

Yes, back to back. It seems 17 years is a long time to get things muddled up.

It is true. The damage done to women’s undercarriage it’s not talked about enough before pregnancy. It should be taught in school.

wish I had known sooner

A lot more women wanted to be nuns….
I know lots of really religious single women and none have considered being nuns. So I suspect the protection from marriage and inevitable pregnancy was a big attraction.

@EdithStourton I am seeing 500-1000 per 100000 live births, so 0.5-1%

Bearing in mind that the average woman has many kids (say 5), the chance for a given woman of dying in childbirth would be more like 5-10%-

mostly when having the first baby as this is most risky for complications

I wasn’t terrified of giving birth and I should have been. Lifelong serious issues. Had a c section for my second child and bought life insurance. Would love more children but would not under any circumstance get pregnant again. Awful.

Most woman didn’t have a choice.
It wasn’t just the risks from pregnancy and birth each time, it was the cumulative effect of so many pregnancies close together. Most women were almost permanently pregnant. They were worn out by the end.

The risk was one in three.

I haven’t had coffee yet today and so I misread the crucial figure of 100,000, not 1,000 live births, sorry, that’s an enormous misreading!

I think that the earliest recorded data from the UK shown on the graph is from 1848, and the very dark red means between 1,000 and 2,500 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births - which is 1-2.5% of live births ending in maternal death. I think!

If your risk is 0.5% and you have 10 births, then you have a 5% risk. 10 was a lot though, most women breastfeed which on the diet they had then reduced their fertility, and also marriage age varied over time, and was often mid-20s.

But yeah, it wasn't sunshine and roses. My GGM had 9 babies. One of her daughters died in childbirth. Another had 10, who all lived to adulthood.

I saw a tweet once that said women didn't start dying in childbirth in large numbers until male doctors got involved. I don't know how true that is but it wouldn't surprise me.

Birth is still a horrific trauma though isn’t it??! I had PTSD after my first (was rushed into theatre after hours of excruciating labour) and it took me years to recover, physically and emotionally. And yet still I don’t feel there’s enough post-partum support for mums. We are just expected to get on with it. I was on anti-depressants for years, my marriage took a hit & my body was a ruin. Awful

I’m 60.

l had an elective C section at 42.

Nice permitted this from the early 2000’s