To not get why a vaginal birth is so important to some people?

[Liketochat1]

Some mothers talk of the trauma and disappointment of not giving birth vaginally. Some say they don't feel like a proper woman or that their body failed them. For many this sounds very traumatic, for others moaning.
AIBU to not 'get' why this is so important to them? I've had 2 c sections and was only intensely grateful that I live in a country and in an age where there are gifted surgeons and resources available to perform these life saving operations. In other parts of the world women are dying in childbirth as they don't have access to these.
Am I so unreasonable to think this?

I didn't have skin to skin with DS2 as I had c section under general. The moment I laid eyes on him, I fell in love so deeply I couldn't believe it. He was whisked off to NICU the following day but that bond has just deepened despite that.

I had a vaginal birth with DS1 but didn't feel that bond until he was 3 days old despite lots of skin to skin and time alone with him. We did bond but it took time whereas with DS2 it was instant.

Just shows that the exit route doesn't always make a difference.

Eh? Hormonal high? I just felt like I'd been kicked by a horse in the vadge.

"Did I do something wrong?"

Did you skim read my post and not see the comment I made that not ALL vaginal births result in a mum having an intense and pleasurable hormonal high afterwards?

"and that formula does not harm babies"

Given that ff babies are more likely to end up being admitted to hospital in the first six months than exclusively bf babies, it's simply not true to say that ff never harms babies.

"Shag, I would trade that hormonal high for the certainty of no vaginal trauma"

Yes - you are not alone in this. I was always more concerned about scarring on my uterus than my perineum, because although it isn't visible to husbands, it can cause life-threatening placental problems in future pregnancies, and I knew I wanted more than one child. I think for those women who only want one or maybe two children, uterine scars are less of an issue.

Shag, it is unavoidable that pristine fanny would annoy certain women. But it IS a benefit of cs. And I have said it.

Happy to take it on the chin if someone tell me I am not a real woman for not having given birth naturally or that I missed out on some 'colossal hormonal high'.

Shag, one, maybe two children? You are deliberately overstating the risks of cs ...

Agenda?

maryZcary Yes, exactly. Formula is not bad for babies. Fact.

Breastfeeding may well be better but I wonder if shagmund or anyone else for that matter could look at a class of 5 year olds for example and pick out who was breast fed or formula fed. So in a way, no it doesn't make a huge difference imo

"And I think that saying "no-one can appreciate how wonderful it is to give birth vaginally unless they have done it" is very dismissive to the many people who might originally liked to have done it, but can't for whatever reason."

It may be inconvenient, but it is true.

"Just shows that the exit route doesn't always make a difference."

Mothers and babies will bond IN SPITE of many of the barriers to an optimal experience of early parenting that many of them will experience.

Doesn't mean that we should assume these things are trivial or irrelevant.

Something that doesn't get talked about much is that there is actually quite a cottage industry around "natural" birthing and that is starting to put pressure on pregnant women. Especially online.

People have successful businesses as doulas, independent midwives (depending on the country, laws can be v different), hypnobirthing instructors, teaching classes like Lamaze or Bradley, selling all the crapola that comes with "natural" pain relief methods like balls, Tens machines, birth pools and other homebirth paraphernalia.

I stopped reading another forum because the Birth/Labour section was completely taken over by a couple of women who worked as professional doulas and hypnobirthing teachers. Their every post was given to emphasising the dangers of hospital births, epidurals, C-sections, and inductions. There was never any mention (or even real understanding) of the very real complications that make that stuff neccessary - in fact, mentioning the risks of labour was actively frowned upon and discouraged - the given wisdom was that every woman was irrationally terrified of birth, and the only thing that would help was being endlessly told how easy it was going to be. Talk of babies getting stuck or going overdue was actually seen as contributing to the likelihood of complications occurring. Posts asking for help getting a planned C-Section were ignored.

In fact, this woman made her (quite handsome) living making women believe that Irish hospitals were full of arrogant consultants dying to induce, forcep, and C-Section every woman that stepped through their doors, and the only way to protect yourself from the doctors' (sic) ignorance was to purchase her hypnobirthing book and CDs and if you possibly could, hire her as a doula as well.

I stopped reading a couple of years ago when on the advice of the forum, a woman refused to go to hospital despite going weeks overdue, waters breaking with blood in, etc. Her baby was fine - but no thanks to an army of posters with no medical degrees and no knowledge of her tests and history.

shagmund Formula fed babies may not have as many anti bodies, so therefore are more suseptible to illness but that IS NOT the same as saying formula harms a baby!

Totally agree, Holdme.

There can be massive hidden agendas disguised as expertise and knowledge. Doulas etc do it, healthcare professionals at hospitals also do it to discourage elective cs.

I had to challenge some pretty dodgy practically made up statistics by the senior midwives about the apparently small risks of a natural birth going awry (ie. for me, meaning instrumental or emcs). Anecdotal evidence from my friends giving birth the first time is sufficient for me to rebut them.

Oh God! Why is a vaginal birth optimal??? There are risks associated with labour and birth whichever method is used! I am sure all of us would love to have a pain free easy time where baby just slides out but that simply does not happen (often) in the real world.

In my own personal experience birth is a means to an end and is bloody painful and tiring either way. I do not see why vaginal birth is optimal.

Does anyone else think that many first births are particularly traumatising for mums and end in a lot of intervention because of epidurals?

Totally anecdotal (I haven't looked into any research that might exist) but it seems to be a very common progression in labour. Once the contractions really get going and become very painful an epidural is administered and the whole thing stalls. I can't imagine how hard it must be to push without being able to feel. Then forceps or even csec happens because babies are distressed because of the slowdown. It seemed a common pattern on One born on tv too.

Second births are often quicker and easier ime but women are understandably frightened about a repeat of the first time and again opt for pain relief that might skew the whole process.

Why isn't every woman told to keep as active as possible too? It really helps but time and again hospitals seem to discourage it.

I really couldn't give a stuff. I'm alive and so is DS thanks to a CS. That's all that matters.

Yes it can definitely happen with medical professionals in hospitals as well.

I think, though, that in terms of the issue of the thread - why particular types of birth are so important to people - the pressure in some internet forums definitely plays a big part. It's very easy for groupthink to spring up (guided by somebody who makes their living from de-medicalised childbirth).

(None of this is a dig at any MN forums or posters, just to be clear - I don't read the Childbirth forum much and I've no idea who posts there. Whenever I do look it seems to be very levelheaded.)

"Breastfeeding may well be better but I wonder if shagmund or anyone else for that matter could look at a class of 5 year olds for example and pick out who was breast fed or formula fed. So in a way, no it doesn't make a huge difference imo"

You won't be able to tell the ones who are eating a thoroughly shit diet at home, or the ones who are being smoked all over (unless you get near enough to sniff them) either, so that argument doesn't work for me.

Actually that sort of logic was the reason women were told that smoking in pregnancy was fine and even beneficial for decades before good quality research showed it was linked to lower birth weights, stillbirth and now SIDS.

But if you're asking - children who've been ff from birth, if you compare them with children who've had a year or more of exclusive breastfeeding, you can often see from the shape of their palate, and the dental arch, which in bottlefed babies tends to be narrower and deeper. Which is why children who've had prolonged breastfeeding tend to be much less likely to need orthodontic treatment, and according to the latest research, are less likely to snore! (sadly not true of my oldest dd, who had 18 months of bf, but still has a very crowded jaw). Also some research going on into adult obstructive sleep apneoa in relation to infant feeding.

It's hard to notice it in the UK as only a tiny fraction of children are fully breastfed into toddlerhood.

Anyway, going to resist the urge to get involved in a barney here about bf, because it's...... eek! midnight!

Night all.

Holdme, I was sold on the whole natural birth thing for my first child.

But then I went to the dark side, not by choice, because the birth ended up in a crash section due to dd's distress. Then the scales fell and I realised, hey, this cs lark isn't so bad. By the time ds was conceived, it was the devil I knew and opted for it again.

Cs does what it says on the tin, for me anyway.

bringupthebabies Yes, I agree. First labour, didn't have a scooby doo about what was happening or why I was basically forced into having an epidural. Managed to push him out on my own eventually, after waiting for epidural to wear off because I couldn't feel to use my muscles iyswim?

Really crappy experience, followed by DS2 6 years later being born by emergency section, most likely the diamorphine caused my babies heart to nearly stop. I only had the diamorphine because I was anticipating the pain getting worse, rather than not coping with the level of pain at that time.

I was sold on it too.

That's why I'm a bit bitter for forking outs hundreds on fucking annoying bullshit hypnobirthing tapes and a big ball I couldn't bear to use and a TENS machine that was as much use as a chocolate teapot.

As it happened genetics smiled on me. DD was born after a three hour labour, no pain relief, no stitches. It was NOTHING I did (certainly wasn't the incredibly cringey perineal massage I got DH to do once before we both died of laughter). My mum had an easy time of it and so did I.

It's mostly just luck. Luck you don't tear, luck you can cope with the particular type of pain that contractions are. I bought a ton of crap that promised to help get me what I wanted but it's genetics - luck - you can't buy that. You are at the mercy of fate.

Going to bed now because I am starting to make an arse of myself getting existential.

shagmund facepalm. Do you really think breast feeding and the method of infant feeding are that important in the grand scheme of things? There are many factors that shape our health and emotions into adulthood and how someone is born or if they were bottle of BF are tiny tiny factors.

Am off to bed now too, guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Oh and I snore [hblush], despite being breast fed for 9 months and then having a cup to drink from.

Panda your experience seems to fit my theory then

When I was much younger I used to know two old ladies who had been midwives 1920s-50s sort of time. They reckoned there was a massive change after the war when women were encouraged into hospitals. Before then they as midwives were all about keeping the perineum intact (as they said pre-war no abs for infections) and would regard it as a rarity if women teared or needed interventions.

I think we are now in danger of going the way of the US where births are routinely medicalised and we collectively distrust our ability to give birth vaginally because it is less likely to happen in a medicalised environment.

Referring back to the OP, I don't care how my babies were born in particular, I am just happy both are here and healthy. However I did have crappy birth experiences and as a result would request a epidural if I were to have another baby as then if a c section is needed I could remain awake. I have lost faith in my body to labour naturally.

That's a very healthy and sane attitude Panda. Afterall the birth is only a very small part of the years and years you are a parent to your DC.

Have you thought about a homebirth at all? If you had another that is I only suggest it because the level of care you get from the midwives is fantastic. Total one-to-one and very relaxed, which I'm convinced all helps to get a good outcome.

Not likely to have another so haven't put much thought into it ...

Really not sure what I would do.

That was the point I was trying to make to shagmund, birth and infant feeding are such a small part of a person's life that they hardly seem worth mentioning and yet we get so emotional and uppity about it. It's not like we remember how we were born or fed is it?

I think I would probably opt for hospital birth and a epidural, the less pain and the more calm I feel the better.