Most people don't use the term 'natural birth' any more. They might talk about 'normal' or 'physiological' birth which pisses people off even more.
But saying vaginal birth is both 'normal' and 'natural' is both accurate and not actually a value judgement. Give it another few years and vaginal birth won't be 'normal' any more because the caesarean rate is increasing further and faster than ever before. At least in the UK.
"Pain relief, instruments, episiotomy, antibiotics, etc. Even if you didn't use them, they were there as backup, and thank god they were."
For a while now people in the maternity sphere have raised concerns about rocketing rates of intervention in birth, and they're right to do so. If rates of induction and unplanned caesarean are going through the roof and it's not been accompanied by a significant improvement in maternal and infant outcomes then that's a problem. That's not a moral judgement and no woman should feel victimised by that discussion. The focus in these discussions in on how care is delivered, not on the birth choices or experiences of individual women.
"Without intravenous antibiotics, I'd have died of sepsis after my first birth. So would many other mums. So, kindly FO with "natural birth"
I was poorly with an infection following my first birth too. On reflection having my waters broken because of the very slow progress I made in my labour after having an epidural, followed by multiple vaginal examinations by an ever changing parade of staff, finishing with a forceps delivery - because by that time I was too knackered to push and stuck on my back, might have played some role in this. For my next two births I stayed at home. A lot of the problems women have emerging from their births, particularly infections, unplanned caesareans, antibiotic use and instrumental care, are linked to the way care is delivered in hospital.