No high about your post, Jabber, makes perfect sense
I think its true re genetics, I was rubbish at tooth brushing as a child and I hardly have any fillings now - dh, who was a brushing fiend and had a much less sugary diet, has loads!
Lennied, dd1 turned head down and I was allowed to go to 39 weeks at which point my bp went up and I had an induction which failed, then a cs: dd had disengaged, bobbed sideways back to her comfort zone. With dd2, they were anxious my bp might go up again plus the consultant just 'had a feeling' it was better to get her out at 38 weeks (she went head down, then kept turning and bobbing around just like her sister). I trusted her, so we went ahead - and the placenta was very odd, with vessels going through the membranes etc, so consultant's hunch was right. So in the end, to cut long winded story shorter, transverse position wasn't the actual reason for c-sections...but yes, its true, they won't risk you going into labour with a transverse babe, in case of cord injuries I think.
Did they talk to you about trying to turn him/her if they didn't turn on their own? It really is early days though, I think MWs just like to put in the fact that consultant will have to be involved to get women used to the idea...it does get some getting used to, or at least it did for me. I know you won't not worry, being pg especially, but really is early days - I know loads of people who had transverse babies who turned!
Castles, really great news re your friend - congrats to her! It does work sometimes (and I should know!) and when it does its just wonderful
Also, doubly glad because it means you got some good news - think you were due some