Do as I say... not as I have done.....

[billvon 2,380]

>ya, there are always exceptions...we are talking about the 99.99% of reality.

Well, the reality is that 99.99% of women do not get late term abortions (actually it's 99.99967%) so it's not much of a problem anyway.

[Suslique 0]

Coreeece

*** there is a disastrous c-section/medical intervention rate in US. )

No, there is not.

Data are for the U.S.

Number of vaginal deliveries: 2,642,892
Number of Cesarean deliveries: 1,284,339
Percent of all deliveries by Cesarean: 32.7%
[Url]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/delivery.htm[/URl]

And read this please:[url]http://www.childbirthconnection.org/article.asp?ck=10456[/URL]

'Can a man still be brave if he's afraid?'
'That is the only time a man can be brave.'
George R.R. Martin, A Game of Thrones

[Coreeece 2]

billvon

>ya, there are always exceptions...we are talking about the 99.99% of reality.

Well, the reality is that 99.99% of women do not get late term abortions (actually it's 99.99967%) so it's not much of a problem anyway.

Agreed...tho I think you numbers are a few points off. Either way, it's a bunch more than the 30 forced c-section "atrocities" in the last 30 years...

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[Coreeece 2]

Suslique

****** there is a disastrous c-section/medical intervention rate in US. )

No, there is not.

Data are for the U.S.

Number of vaginal deliveries: 2,642,892
Number of Cesarean deliveries: 1,284,339
Percent of all deliveries by Cesarean: 32.7%
[Url]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/delivery.htm[/URl]

And read this please:[url]http://www.childbirthconnection.org/article.asp?ck=10456[/URL]

What does that have to do with forced Cesarean and abortion?

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[Suslique 0]

Coreeece

********* there is a disastrous c-section/medical intervention rate in US. )

No, there is not.

Data are for the U.S.

Number of vaginal deliveries: 2,642,892
Number of Cesarean deliveries: 1,284,339
Percent of all deliveries by Cesarean: 32.7%
[Url]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/delivery.htm[/URl]

And read this please:[url]http://www.childbirthconnection.org/article.asp?ck=10456[/URL]

What does that have to do with forced Cesarean and abortion?

its not about forced cesarean, i wrote that even without anti-abortion laws/forced cesareans the rate of c-sections in US is alarmingly high (read: medical personnel are to blame). i was implying that it will be even higher IF anti-abortion laws will be accepted in all states all over the US.

'Can a man still be brave if he's afraid?'
'That is the only time a man can be brave.'
George R.R. Martin, A Game of Thrones

[Coreeece 2]

billvon

>ya, there are always exceptions...we are talking about the 99.99% of reality.

Well, the reality is that 99.99% of women do not get late term abortions (actually it's 99.99967%) so it's not much of a problem anyway.

Just wanted to add that I was surprised to hear about this bill...everybody knows it probably won't make it to law.

In this country we elect officials based on 3 criteria - guns, gays and abortion. This is just a quick tally to show where everybody stands.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[airdvr 197]

Suslique

************ there is a disastrous c-section/medical intervention rate in US. )

No, there is not.

Data are for the U.S.

Number of vaginal deliveries: 2,642,892
Number of Cesarean deliveries: 1,284,339
Percent of all deliveries by Cesarean: 32.7%
[Url]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/delivery.htm[/URl]

And read this please:[url]http://www.childbirthconnection.org/article.asp?ck=10456[/URL]

What does that have to do with forced Cesarean and abortion?

its not about forced cesarean, i wrote that even without anti-abortion laws/forced cesareans the rate of c-sections in US is alarmingly high (read: medical personnel medical malpractice attorneys are to blame). i was implying that it will be even higher IF anti-abortion laws will be accepted in all states all over the US.

FIFY

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Suslique 0]

yeah, the whole thing is depressing.

instead of wasting their time on stupid bills they should deal with an amazing phenomena of maternity leave that the whole world has accepted many decades ago... and right to have a home birth without being grounded by CPS and so on

'Can a man still be brave if he's afraid?'
'That is the only time a man can be brave.'
George R.R. Martin, A Game of Thrones

[TriGirl 268]

Speaking of madness...

http://www.dailycomet.com/article/20150506/articles/150509726

The contradictory items in this amendment, from the same lawmaker (from the article):

Quote

"A House panel on Wednesday unanimously approved a bill by Rep. Lenar Whitney that would bar abortions based on the baby's gender."

and

Quote

"The committee, at Whitney's request, tacked on an amendment to the bill requiring that a doctor performing an abortion notify the mother of the sex of the baby at least 24 hours before the procedure."

So, the same lawmaker wanted to outlaw the termination of a pregnancy based on gender, but insists the woman should be informed of the gender if she doesn't already know, before the pregnancy can be terminated. In my opinion, the only reason to insist the woman be informed of the gender of the fetus is to give the provider the grounds to deny terminating the pregnancy, claiming the request to terminate was due to gender.

Let's not even mention:

Quote

Whitney did not cite any cases of sex-selective abortion in Louisiana, but the Houma Republican said they were performed frequently in other countries and increasingly common in the United States. She said girls represent the vast majority of gender-selective abortions.

"Worldwide studies show that 160 million baby girls are missing due to sex-selection abortions, primarily from Asian nations," said Whitney, adding that media reports have indicated the practice is occurring in the United States.

So, they're happening in Asian nations, and according to the media, they have happened somewhere in the U.S. Yeah, we'd better make a law against it right away!!!

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[turtlespeed 212]

Suslique

yeah, the whole thing is depressing.

instead of wasting their time on stupid bills they should deal with an amazing phenomena of maternity leave that the whole world has accepted many decades ago... and right to have a home birth without being grounded by CPS and so on

It sounds like you are against c sections. Shouldn't it be her choice?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[turtlespeed 212]

TriGirl

Speaking of madness...

http://www.dailycomet.com/article/20150506/articles/150509726

The contradictory items in this amendment, from the same lawmaker (from the article):

Quote

"A House panel on Wednesday unanimously approved a bill by Rep. Lenar Whitney that would bar abortions based on the baby's gender."

and
***"The committee, at Whitney's request, tacked on an amendment to the bill requiring that a doctor performing an abortion notify the mother of the sex of the baby at least 24 hours before the procedure."

So, the same lawmaker wanted to outlaw the termination of a pregnancy based on gender, but insists the woman should be informed of the gender if she doesn't already know, before the pregnancy can be terminated. In my opinion, the only reason to insist the woman be informed of the gender of the fetus is to give the provider the grounds to deny terminating the pregnancy, claiming the request to terminate was due to gender.

Let's not even mention:

Quote

Whitney did not cite any cases of sex-selective abortion in Louisiana, but the Houma Republican said they were performed frequently in other countries and increasingly common in the United States. She said girls represent the vast majority of gender-selective abortions.

"Worldwide studies show that 160 million baby girls are missing due to sex-selection abortions, primarily from Asian nations," said Whitney, adding that media reports have indicated the practice is occurring in the United States.

So, they're happening in Asian nations, and according to the media, they have happened somewhere in the U.S. Yeah, we'd better make a law against it right away!!!
160 million is a lot. We need more women to gawk at.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Andy9o8 0]

turtlespeed

***yeah, the whole thing is depressing.

instead of wasting their time on stupid bills they should deal with an amazing phenomena of maternity leave that the whole world has accepted many decades ago... and right to have a home birth without being grounded by CPS and so on

It sounds like you are against c sections. Shouldn't it be her choice?

I think you're probably over-simplifying her position. My impression is that she's against what she sees as over-prescription of C-sections in the US.

[turtlespeed 212]

Andy9o8

******yeah, the whole thing is depressing.

instead of wasting their time on stupid bills they should deal with an amazing phenomena of maternity leave that the whole world has accepted many decades ago... and right to have a home birth without being grounded by CPS and so on

It sounds like you are against c sections. Shouldn't it be her choice?

I think you're probably over-simplifying her position. My impression is that she's against what she sees as over-prescription of C-sections in the US.

Are you saying that the woman has no choice?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[wmw999 2,116]

And your expertise in this matter is? If many other developed countries have better neonatal survival rates than the US, and 20% of our cesarean rate, maybe there's something we can learn from them.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Coreeece 2]

I don't need to be an expert to see that it's not a disaster...

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[Suslique 0]

turtlespeed

***yeah, the whole thing is depressing.

instead of wasting their time on stupid bills they should deal with an amazing phenomena of maternity leave that the whole world has accepted many decades ago... and right to have a home birth without being grounded by CPS and so on

It sounds like you are against c sections. Shouldn't it be her choice?

I'm against the whole thing of taking the RIGHT of birth away from women. no women properly informed about c-sections or hospital birth full of medical interventions will choose medical interventions or c-section.

women are coerced and fooled by medical personnel to have a pitocin, to have an epidural and when the snowball of interventions results in a c-section no women is told that it all happened because of initial unnecessary involvement of an obgyn. midwife delivered childbirth is actually outlawed in certain states.

do you have any idea how many women are suffering from PTSD after their hospital births in US? you don't, because you have never been interested in this subject. i'm involved in various groups that try to give the right to give the birth back to a women, where it should belong.

do you know that c-section/medical intervention rates significantly increase statistically by the end of the shift time of obgyns? i.e. they are going to stuff you with pitocin wanting to make you pop that baby out asap because they want to go to home. they will give you epidural so you won't feel anything, then your baby's heart rate will go off the roof thanks to all the synthetic crap in your system and then the heroic doctor will save your baby's life but cutting it out of your belly.

'Can a man still be brave if he's afraid?'
'That is the only time a man can be brave.'
George R.R. Martin, A Game of Thrones

[billvon 2,380]

>no women properly informed about c-sections or hospital birth full of medical
>interventions will choose medical interventions or c-section.

Hmm. We chose it twice, out of medical necessity. In both cases we planned to labor at home with a dula - but it was not to be.

[Suslique 0]

billvon

>no women properly informed about c-sections or hospital birth full of medical
>interventions will choose medical interventions or c-section.

Hmm. We chose it twice, out of medical necessity. In both cases we planned to labor at home with a dula - but it was not to be.

maybe i wasn't clear enough, sorry.

i was talking about elective c-sections, when women decides to have c-section with no medical necessity to do so. these women need to be informed about all the risks involved for both her and her baby. and of course if she decides to go for it, its her right, just like choosing an all natural labour at home with midwife and doula.

i'm sorry that it happened, there is still a hope if you decide on 3rd one :) vba2c is possible sometimes. in any case, when there is a complication the scenario changes. no doubt about it. unfortunately lots of women in that 32% rate didn't have any medical reasons to have a c-section

'Can a man still be brave if he's afraid?'
'That is the only time a man can be brave.'
George R.R. Martin, A Game of Thrones

[Andy9o8 0]

turtlespeed

*********yeah, the whole thing is depressing.

instead of wasting their time on stupid bills they should deal with an amazing phenomena of maternity leave that the whole world has accepted many decades ago... and right to have a home birth without being grounded by CPS and so on

It sounds like you are against c sections. Shouldn't it be her choice?

I think you're probably over-simplifying her position. My impression is that she's against what she sees as over-prescription of C-sections in the US.

Are you saying that the woman has no choice?

I'm saying you're over-simplifying Suslique's position.

[billvon 2,380]

>i was talking about elective c-sections, when women decides to have c-section
>with no medical necessity to do so. these women need to be informed about all the
>risks involved for both her and her baby. and of course if she decides to go for it, its
>her right, just like choosing an all natural labour at home with midwife and doula.

Agreed with all the above. The converse, though, is that women should not feel like they are harming themselves or their child through a C-section when problems do arise. The literature lists many cases of women who were built up to expect a wondrous and critical experience during natural childbirth, only to see signs of pre-eclampsia around week 35 and a resulting emergency C-section. They often end up clinically depressed, thinking that they lost out on an important experience with their child that will harm them both going forward. Sometimes they even blame themselves, since pre-eclampsia is often described as a "mother vs baby" metabolic struggle. They can lose sight that the goal is a healthy baby and mother.

(A rare, but not insignificant, problem that arises sometimes is that women then refuse the C-section based on the descriptions of how important natural birth is. That, of course, puts them at far higher risk for death from eclampsia.)

Overall I think a realistic presentation of the benefits of natural childbirth - and the necessity of intervention in some cases - is the best approach overall.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

Hi bill,

Quote

a resulting emergency C-section

Both of my grandchildren were born this way. It was a last minute decision by the doctor(s).

Quote

They can lose sight that the goal is a healthy baby and mother.

^^^^^ This.

Jerry Baumchen

[Suslique 0]

billvon

>i was talking about elective c-sections, when women decides to have c-section
>with no medical necessity to do so. these women need to be informed about all the
>risks involved for both her and her baby. and of course if she decides to go for it, its
>her right, just like choosing an all natural labour at home with midwife and doula.

Agreed with all the above. The converse, though, is that women should not feel like they are harming themselves or their child through a C-section when problems do arise. The literature lists many cases of women who were built up to expect a wondrous and critical experience during natural childbirth, only to see signs of pre-eclampsia around week 35 and a resulting emergency C-section. They often end up clinically depressed, thinking that they lost out on an important experience with their child that will harm them both going forward. Sometimes they even blame themselves, since pre-eclampsia is often described as a "mother vs baby" metabolic struggle. They can lose sight that the goal is a healthy baby and mother.

(A rare, but not insignificant, problem that arises sometimes is that women then refuse the C-section based on the descriptions of how important natural birth is. That, of course, puts them at far higher risk for death from eclampsia.)

Overall I think a realistic presentation of the benefits of natural childbirth - and the necessity of intervention in some cases - is the best approach overall.

i wholeheartedly agree with you. preeclampsia is a serious complication that strikes at the very end and it hits hard. every woman that is getting ready and is so hopeful of natural birth goes through multiple stages of a real grief when all her plans are ruined because of what she thinks is her body failing her. support is so important and understanding partner plays huge role in all this. no matter how prepared woman is, no matter how realistic her expectations are it takes time to accept the reality, to love yourself again and to move on. it also adds to postpartum stress and may lead to depression. what I'm trying to say that "c-section is not a big deal" is not that kind of attitude that makes things easier for a woman who expected a different finale, you know?

its not just theoretical i lived through that myself as well. not a c-section, it was too late.

'Can a man still be brave if he's afraid?'
'That is the only time a man can be brave.'
George R.R. Martin, A Game of Thrones

[Suslique 0]

JerryBaumchen

Hi bill,

Quote

a resulting emergency C-section

Both of my grandchildren were born this way. It was a last minute decision by the doctor(s).

***They can lose sight that the goal is a healthy baby and mother.

^^^^^ This.

Jerry Baumchen

true, all true, i agree with you. emergencies are real and they do happen, no doubt about it and balanced approach is what i'm talking about.

but trending fashion of elective c-section being an "easy" alternative to natural birth is not healthy. and i don't blame women for that either, most of them face the situation when post-surgery recovery turns to be not so easy after all. they also usually need more help with establishing breastfeeding after the surgery as well. and its not just happening in US, there a whole epidemic of obgyns not informing women of possible complications of their decisions. after all a first time mother has little idea of how its like and its doctor's duty to help her to make an informed decision

'Can a man still be brave if he's afraid?'
'That is the only time a man can be brave.'
George R.R. Martin, A Game of Thrones