# Non-natural birth & immediate bonding



## amberskyfire (Sep 15, 2007)

(Title change by request)

I am sure that most people in this community suspect this, but I was wondering if anyone knows of or can direct me toward actual studies which might deal with this issue.

I have long suspected that many of the current mainstream practices of birth in hospitals may be what is leading so many women toward being unable or unwilling to care for their babies properly after birth.

We all know that during natural birth, the mother releases oxytocin as well as other hormones which initiate the very short period of time in which mother and baby attach. These hormones cause the mother to become fiercely protective of her baby and they promote not only bonding, but a strong desire in the mother to keep her baby close and to nourish and protect it.

But most women in hospitals today give birth under some kind of anesthesia. Even the women who are lucky enough to have natural births have their babies taken from them immediately after and the mother is usually left waiting as she listens to her baby screaming while the doctors and nurses run tests, measure, weight, poke, prod, and wash the baby before giving it back to the mother. This is, in essence, taking the responsibility of the baby away from the mother right at the critical moments in which she should be forming an attachment to her baby. Instead, she is forming an attachment to not holding her baby and hearing the sound of her child's cries.

I have strong suspicions that these actions may be creating a lack of ability to mother in these new mothers. I hear too many women say that after their baby was born, they were "scared" or they were unsure of themselves or did not know what to do. Often, they do not understand their babies cries. Many of them put their own wants and desires before the biological needs of their babies (ie: CIO, putting the baby in another room, not wanting to breastfeed for personal reasons). It seems as though because these women were not allowed to bond with their babies in hospital, they lost the ability to mother properly.

Everyone I know was terrified after the birth of their baby and even with their second and third babies, they told me it was like the first time and they didn't know what to do. All of them had problems bonding.

Everyone told me that I would also be a scared first-time-mom, but it wasn't that way for me at all. I had a home birth and was absolutely intent on my baby. I never had a time where I did not understand her cries. There was never a time when I could let her cry or even put her down until she was much older. I was fiercely protective of her.

Are there any studies that deal with this directly that you know of? What was your experience? Did you have trouble bonding after a hospital birth or a home birth?

As someone mentioned, you can have a hospital birth and still be a gentle parent. Of course this is true! We all know this because so many mothers here do give birth in the hospital.

BUT, do you think that this could be because we had access to the resources to know what might happen and how to overcome it? Most of us knew about attachment parenting before we ever gave birth. Most mothers don't have access to this information. Their experiences are usually of the authority taking care of their birth and their babies for them and many of them often have little info to go on other than what they are told.

What do you think?

*Edit:*

Someone was able to answer my question very well with this Mothering article by Sarah J. Buckley:

http://www.mothering.com/pregnancy-b...print-of-labor

It's a fantastic article, much of which was relevant to my question, but I'll quote the most relevant paragraphs here in case anyone was interested, but didn't have time to read the full article:

"Epidural pain relief has major effects on all of the previously mentioned hormones of labor. Epidurals inhibit beta-endorphin production47 and therefore also inhibit the shift in consciousness that is part of a normal labor...When an epidural is in place, the oxytocin peak that occurs at birth is also inhibited because the stretch receptors of a birthing woman's lower vagina, which trigger this peak, are numbed. This effect probably persists even when the epidural has worn off and sensation has returned, because the nerve fibers involved are smaller than the sensory nerves and therefore more sensitive to drug effects.48

Another indication of the effects of epidurals on mother and baby comes from French researchers who gave epidurals to laboring sheep.56

Some studies indicate that this disturbance may apply to humans also. Mothers given epidurals in one study spent less time with their babies in hospital, in inverse proportion to the dose of drugs they received and the length of the second stage of labor.57 In another study, mothers who had epidurals described their babies as more difficult to care for one month later.58

The consequences of such radical departures from our hormonal blueprint are suggested in the work of Australian researchers who interviewed 242 women in late pregnancy and again after birth. The 50 percent of women who had given spontaneous vaginal birth experienced a marked improvement in mood and an elevation of self-esteem after delivery. By contrast, the 17 percent who had cesarean surgery were more likely to experience a decline in mood and self-esteem.

These studies not only indicate important links between birth and breastfeeding but also show how an optimal birth experience can influence the long-term health of mother and baby...And enhanced self-esteem after a natural birth--a lifelong effect, in my experience--is a solid base from which to begin our mothering.

Even in non-interventionist settings, it is uncommon for a baby to remain in his mother's arms for the first one to two hours. And yet nature's blueprint for this time includes a specific and genetically encoded activation of the brain and nervous system for both mother and baby. For example, when the newborn baby is in skin-to-skin contact at the mother's left breast (which is where new mothers in all cultures instinctively cradle their babies) and in contact with her heart rhythm, "a cascade of supportive confirmative information activates every sense, instinct and intelligence needed for the radical change of environment&#8230;. Thus intelligent learning begins at birth."70

For the mother also, "A major block of dormant intelligences is activated" the mother then knows exactly what to do and can communicate with her baby on an intuitive level."71 This awakening of maternal capabilities is well known among animal researchers, who link it to the action of pregnancy and birth hormones on the brains of mothers who have recently delivered.72 Such intuitive capacities are sorely needed in our human culture, where we rely so heavily on outside advice from books and "experts" to tell us how to care for our babies."

Thank you so much for the help! I'll add this to the research that I already have. As someone else mentioned, I think it is wonderful that hospitals are beginning to learn this and that some of them are starting to implement protocol of allowing the mother to have and keep her baby immediately after the birth.


----------



## texmati (Oct 19, 2004)

I had a ECS w/Gen Anes. I did feel some lack of bonding, esp in the hospital. once we got home and breastfeeding was established things were much better.

However, I was never terrified of my baby, I never let him cry (even now). I do not put my needs in front of my child's. Couldn't even take a dump today, because I needed to attend to him.

I hate to break it to you, but your child's birthday is just one day. You don't need to have a great birth experience to be a good mom. You can have a crappy birth and be a spectacular mom. I am.


----------



## 4Blessings (Feb 27, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *texmati* 
<snip>

I hate to break it to you, but your childs birthday is just one day. You don't need to have a great birth experiance to be a good mom. You can have a crappy birth and be a spectacular mom. I am.


^^^this^^^


----------



## AllyRae (Dec 10, 2003)

Yep, that. I've been an extremely attentive mom, an AP parent, and I do everything with my children. I do extended nursing, co-sleep until they're ready to be in their own room (so for at least a few years), don't CIO, etc. I don't even really put my baby down for the first several months (doing skin-to-skin, nursing, or carrying in a sling) unless I'm right down on the floor playing with the baby. And we've never used baby sitters. So apparently I'm not one who is "attached to not holding my baby". One of my children was born after a 53 hour induction (with an epidural for the last few hours and a vacuum extraction), one was born to another mother and adopted by me in an international adoption, and one was born via planned c-section. I didn't need a glorious homebirth to be a good mom to my kids...and thinking I had to and that I was a failure for not being able to have one is what lead to a lot of self-esteem issues for me when my first child was an infant. Then I realized I am a mom who does the best I can and are very attached to my children regardless of how they entered the world.

Seriously, moms who aren't able to give birth with "the perfect birth" really don't need to hear that because of that, they are statistically supposed to be crappy moms. I know several moms who have had homebirths that do CIO and don't breastfeed past a couple months old and swat their infant's hands. And a lot of moms who have non-natural births who are fantastic AP parents.


----------



## Sk8ermaiden (Feb 13, 2008)

I agree with the previous posters. It is almost like natural birthers can't just take that natural birth is an awesome thing. Natural birth has to be an awesome thing and any other form of birth has to be an awful, terrible thing that scars you and your baby for the rest of your lives. It gets old.

I had an AWFUL birth, with a spinal, and my baby was stolen from me and I did not see her for 20 hours, and barely after that for 5 days.

She is so amazing that I don't have words to describe her. She is such a joy and being her mom is the greatest thing I have ever been called to do. I have never been unsure of her, despite having never been around babies before. She is breastfed (despite how awful it is for me) she is never left to cry and has all her emotional needs met. I am pretty sure I am an awesome mother. And if my next one is born by HBAC or c/s, I will be just as awesome a mother to that one.

My best friend had an epidural and is a great mother too - she has a very high needs baby who wants to be held or nursing every second of the day and she willingly provides that for him.


----------



## amberskyfire (Sep 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *texmati* 
I had a ECS w/Gen Anes. I did feel some lack of bonding, esp in the hospital. once we got home and breastfeeding was established things were much better.

However, I was never terrified of my baby, I never let him cry (even now). I do not put my needs in front of my child's. Couldn't even take a dump today, because I needed to attend to him.

I hate to break it to you, but your child's birthday is just one day. You don't need to have a great birth experience to be a good mom. You can have a crappy birth and be a spectacular mom. I am.

You are exactly right! I think the issue, however, is that we have found resources to educate ourselves. Most moms don't know anything about CIO. They take all of this bad advice maybe because they had this experience in the hospital and they don't know where to turn, so they hear what the authority tells them and they believe it, which can lead to these parenting practices.

We in the natural parenting community learn about problems that can arise, usually before we give birth, and I think in a lot of cases, this helps us overcome obstacles set forth in hospital practices.

Of course, not all women are going to be this way. Lots of women never have any access to info saying that CIO is bad and they still in their heart of hearts know it's wrong and refuse to do it. It's just a generalization, of course.


----------



## jeliphish (Jul 18, 2007)

These threads cause nothing but trouble in my experience. It is IMPOSSIBLE to predict maternal/infant bonding with such general statements. There has been evidence that oxytocin is not released adequately with mother's who have a C/S with no experience of active labor. HOWEVER, the biggest stimulator of oxytocin release is breastfeeding... so even if a mother has to have a C/S, her breastfeeding is going to release more oxytocin hormones than it would have following active labor. If the mother also doesn't happen to breastfeed, then well, I think it's unfair to make such assumptions. We are creatures of the highest thought processing abilities and have a frontal lobe.... I do not think oxytocin is the "end all be all" determining factor in this.

Also- epidurals have no effect whatsoever on the release of oxytocin. Oxytocin is released during active labor, pressure on the cervix, and vaginal birth. The oxytocin is there whether it is natural or whether you don't feel a thing....


----------



## Wildwomyn (Aug 30, 2008)

Nothing makes my day like generalizing about what I crappy mother I must be because I failed birth. Of course, I do breastfeed, and I don't CIO, but I had a c-section so you should probably get some better woman to come take my baby from me.


----------



## Masel (Apr 14, 2008)

I have two daughters. One I didn't give birth to and one with whom I had a natural childbirth. I feel that I am equally attached to them. I might even be closer with DD1 (my adopted girl) since she had no competition for my attention. (She said, typing 1 handed with one kid nursing and the other hanging off my chair asking to go outside.)


----------



## amberskyfire (Sep 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Wildwomyn* 
Nothing makes my day like generalizing about what I crappy mother I must be because I failed birth. Of course, I do breastfeed, and I don't CIO, but I had a c-section so you should probably get some better woman to come take my baby from me.

I'm so sorry, I didn't realize it would be taken personally when I wrote it, so I corrected the post to discuss what I think what the issue really might be.

Of course you are not going to be a bad mother because you didn't have a natural birth.

BUT, mothers who tend to be good mothers also usually learn about gentle parenting practices in advance. If we read about these things and know they are not good, then we know ho to implement gentle techniques before the birth.

Do you think that a mother who knows about attachment parenting before the birth of her child might stand a better chance than a mother who doesn't know what might happen yet? Do you think that women who have never heard that things like CIO are bad would know on their own? I don't know for a fact, but wonder if perhaps these mothers who have had their authority taken away in the beginning might just listen to bad advice because they feel unsure of themselves.

Having already learned about AP in advance could make things quite different.

I just have to wonder what it is that causes so many women to not listen to instinct and instead do things like CIO. There's got to be some kind of underlying issue.


----------



## texmati (Oct 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amberskyfire* 
You are exactly right! I think the issue, however, is that we have found resources to educate ourselves. Most moms don't know anything about CIO. They take all of this bad advice maybe because they had this experience in the hospital and they don't know where to turn, so they hear what the authority tells them and they believe it, which can lead to these parenting practices.

We in the natural parenting community learn about problems that can arise, usually before we give birth, and I think in a lot of cases, this helps us overcome obstacles set forth in hospital practices.

Of course, not all women are going to be this way. Lots of women never have any access to info saying that CIO is bad and they still in their heart of hearts know it's wrong and refuse to do it. It's just a generalization, of course.

I think there are plenty of reasons to educate mothers about natural births. Believe me, I would never want anyone to go through what I went through without good reason.

I believe that non natural birth can cause a lot of problems, but inability to mother is not one of them.

If you believe strongly against CIO, than educate against CIO! Having a non natural birth has nothing to do with a mom letting her 4 month old cry it out in a crib.

Also-- IME, most people who CIO do it because they think it's best for their kid. Not because their epidurals have left them without maternal feeling.


----------



## amberskyfire (Sep 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Masel* 
I have two daughters. One I didn't give birth to and one with whom I had a natural childbirth. I feel that I am equally attached to them. I might even be closer with DD1 (my adopted girl) since she had no competition for my attention. (She said, typing 1 handed with one kid nursing and the other hanging off my chair asking to go outside.)

That is very interesting! Thanks for sharing your experience









Did you know about gentle parenting techniques before you adopted?


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

I had an epidural with my first and a great experience being a first time mom, came completely naturally to me, more so than anyone else I have talk about first time mothering with. With my second I went completely med free and holy cow was that a hard transition.


----------



## amberskyfire (Sep 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *artgoddess* 
I had an epidural with my first and a great experience being a first time mom, came completely naturally to me, more so than anyone else I have talk about first time mothering with. With my second I went completely med free and holy cow was that a hard transition.

Thank you! That's just the kind of anecdotal info that I was looking for.

Do you feel that there was anything in particular that may have caused you to have a hard time the second time around?


----------



## Annie Mac (Dec 30, 2009)

"I have strong suspicions that these actions may be creating a lack of ability to mother in these new mothers. I hear too many women say that after their baby was born, they were "scared" or they were unsure of themselves or did not know what to do. Often, they do not understand their babies cries. Many of them put their own wants and desires before the biological needs of their babies (ie: CIO, putting the baby in another room, not wanting to breastfeed for personal reasons). It seems as though because these women were not allowed to bond with their babies in hospital, they lost the ability to mother properly."

Sorry, I don't know how to quote, so I've cut and pasted.

First of all, there is clearly some serious judgment going on here about what is "proper" mothering...what is right for one is not right for another, and I think that needs to be addressed right off the bat. There is no definitive manual that defines "the ability to mother." I think most people would agree that being abusive is not good parenting, but even what constitutes abusive is subjective (is spanking abusive? Well, I might think so, but many parents would disagree with me).

Secondly, I think that that social and financial factors are way more significant to how a child is raised. The fact that the extended family has broken down, and one can not easily appeal to mothers, grandmothers, sisters, nieces, etc to help with the day-to-day issues means that we have to turn elsewhere for advice. And where is that? Just like with so many other things, we turn to the "experts," & scientific studies. These change from decade to decade, so even they are clearly not definitive. If we need time away, quite often, we have to turn to daycare centres and other financial models of care. That's going to change things. And another thing is that many families need two incomes to survive. That's bound to change the face of the family. I'm not saying any of these things are good or bad, just that I think the birth experience is a drop in the bucket compared to these other influences.

Also, what about adoptive parents? They don't even give birth to the babies, they may not even come into their lives until toddlerhood, yet clearly, they can create strong bonds with these children.


----------



## karika (Nov 4, 2005)

I haven't read the thread, just skimmed it. I believe there is some chemical connection. I don't want to post anymore because from what I read, ppl are taking it personally when to me it seemed a genuine scientific query. There are consequences in so many ways to a less than totally natural birth (which, in case anyone thinks I am pointing fingers, I have never had. All of my births (3) were hospital births, only 1 of them natural/ no interventions.) I don't know if any studies can be done on it, and I am sure that the mothers in MDC at least have used AP principles to complete an attachment after births that didn't go as planned or hoped....


----------



## BrittneyMarie (Nov 11, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amberskyfire* 
BUT, mothers who tend to be good mothers also usually learn about gentle parenting practices in advance. If we read about these things and know they are not good, then we know ho to implement gentle techniques before the birth.

As pro- gentle parenting/doing research about parenting as I am, I think saying that "good" mothers are mothers that practice gentle parenting and read about parenting is absolutely unfair. Many mothers dont read a thing about parenting and are still excellent mothers. And mothers that don't practice gentle parenting are not necessarily not "good" mothers.


----------



## Wildwomyn (Aug 30, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amberskyfire* 
I'm so sorry, I didn't realize it would be taken personally when I wrote it, so I corrected the post to discuss what I think what the issue really might be.

It was originally more insulting? Because the one I was responding to is still there.

I had a medically necessary c-section. I wish it hadn't been necessary, but I don't regret making the choice to do it in the circumstances I was given. And I actually had already decided to nurse and not cio, etc., before/while I was pregnant, and it didn't magically save me from developing pre-e. I feel good about having been prepared enough to be sure that I actually needed the interventions I had.


----------



## amberskyfire (Sep 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jeliphish* 
These threads cause nothing but trouble in my experience. It is IMPOSSIBLE to predict maternal/infant bonding with such general statements. There has been evidence that oxytocin is not released adequately with mother's who have a C/S with no experience of active labor. HOWEVER, the biggest stimulator of oxytocin release is breastfeeding... so even if a mother has to have a C/S, her breastfeeding is going to release more oxytocin hormones than it would have following active labor. If the mother also doesn't happen to breastfeed, then well, I think it's unfair to make such assumptions. We are creatures of the highest thought processing abilities and have a frontal lobe.... I do not think oxytocin is the "end all be all" determining factor in this.

Also- epidurals have no effect whatsoever on the release of oxytocin. Oxytocin is released during active labor, pressure on the cervix, and vaginal birth. The oxytocin is there whether it is natural or whether you don't feel a thing....

In all my research, I have only found information that does say that use of epidural does have an effect on the release of oxytocin. Here is just one example of one study that was done: http://www.biomedexperts.com/Abstrac...ural_analgesia
Maybe you know of some better or newer info than I've been able to find, however.

I agree that there is a lot of oxytocin released during breastfeeding, but most mothers, unfortunately, do not breastfeed







Not that a woman who doesn't breastfeed will definitely have problems, but if there is a larger percentage of mothers who do have trouble after medicated births, then that might show up in a study. That's what I was asking, is if there is that kind of a study done.

I think the problem with this kind of a question is that mothers are very quick to take offense to whatever they can. We are very vulnerable as moms. If someone says that having drugs in labor may cause you to have difficulty mothering, OF COURSE people are going to freak out and take offense and say "OMG, I had it and I am not a bad mom!" but that's just people.

Of course it's silly to think that having an epidural or a cesarean will MAKE you a bad mother, but it's very foolish to say that it's okay to do these things because it's possible to turn out okay in the end. What if it does cause a lot of women a lot of problems? Shouldn't we try to find out if there are more issues at hand? Of course in any study it isn't going to be 100% either way. That's just science. That is why we, as humans, have to generalize. Nothing is ever going to fit into our belief that everything is always 100% either way. That's just life. It's funny that it has to be an issue, when we are all grown up now and should all know by now that everything has to be generalized, but I guess that's how we mamas are.

But no one is suggesting here that mothers who have had drugs or cesareans are bad mothers.

People's desire to get uptight about parenting never seems to equal the findings of science, though. And hey, I'm no different. I can get pretty growly when people start to put out negative articles on attachment parenting.


----------



## amberskyfire (Sep 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Annie Mac* 
"I have strong suspicions that these actions may be creating a lack of ability to mother in these new mothers. I hear too many women say that after their baby was born, they were "scared" or they were unsure of themselves or did not know what to do. Often, they do not understand their babies cries. Many of them put their own wants and desires before the biological needs of their babies (ie: CIO, putting the baby in another room, not wanting to breastfeed for personal reasons). It seems as though because these women were not allowed to bond with their babies in hospital, they lost the ability to mother properly."

Sorry, I don't know how to quote, so I've cut and pasted.

First of all, there is clearly some serious judgment going on here about what is "proper" mothering...what is right for one is not right for another, and I think that needs to be addressed right off the bat. There is no definitive manual that defines "the ability to mother." I think most people would agree that being abusive is not good parenting, but even what constitutes abusive is subjective (is spanking abusive? Well, I might think so, but many parents would disagree with me).

Secondly, I think that that social and financial factors are way more significant to how a child is raised. The fact that the extended family has broken down, and one can not easily appeal to mothers, grandmothers, sisters, nieces, etc to help with the day-to-day issues means that we have to turn elsewhere for advice. And where is that? Just like with so many other things, we turn to the "experts," & scientific studies. These change from decade to decade, so even they are clearly not definitive. If we need time away, quite often, we have to turn to daycare centres and other financial models of care. That's going to change things. And another thing is that many families need two incomes to survive. That's bound to change the face of the family. I'm not saying any of these things are good or bad, just that I think the birth experience is a drop in the bucket compared to these other influences.

Also, what about adoptive parents? They don't even give birth to the babies, they may not even come into their lives until toddlerhood, yet clearly, they can create strong bonds with these children.

When I said that women often have trouble mothering, I didn't mean that they didn't go by a specific set of rules (ie: AP). I mean that women today often go against what would be a natural instinct. For example, many mothers ignore their babies cries. Ignoring a baby's cries and leaving it alone while you go about your business isn't the way any mammal, including humans, instinctively reacts toward her offspring, so that's the biggest factor I wanted to bring up - not spanking or using a stroller or any other type of parenting choices which are variations of normal.

I think you are totally right about extended family and parenting. Most mothers today don't have anyone to help them. I didn't and still do not. I'm pretty much on my own. I'm married, but my husband doesn't know anything about parenting and didn't know what to do.

And almost all mothers do create strong bonds to their children, but a lot of mothers say that they had to work to form these bonds over time. I've been reading some of the research by Michel Odent and he parallels studies done in monkeys, but I don't think that humans and monkeys are close enough to be considered the same because we react very differently socially from monkeys.


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Please don't make this personal so this thread can remain on the board. As a natural family living site, and it is expected that members will wish to explore the realities of our experiences, good and bad. No one is judging (general) you by asking if interventive births _can_ lead to difficulties. Research shows that they _can_. It is not a personal condemnation, and it should not be taken as such. If you find yourself reacting personally, please take some time before responding and please keep the User Agreement in mind.

Here are a few articles that might be of interest:

http://www.mothering.com/pregnancy-b...print-of-labor

http://mothering.com/green-living/wh...-family-living

http://www.mothering.com/science-att...cal-roots-love

Please contact a moderator if you have any questions or concerns, thanks!


----------



## TCMoulton (Oct 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amberskyfire* 
BUT, mothers who tend to be good mothers also usually learn about gentle parenting practices in advance.


I really don't think that this is a fair statement to make. I have met moms who knew nothing about raising children when they went into their own birth be fabulous parents and moms who were raised by the kindest, gentlest moms be not so great and gentle parents.

This kind of thread does nothing but hurt feelings and further divide the split between the moms here who have given birth via C/S (for whatever reason) and the moms who went the natural route.


----------



## AllyRae (Dec 10, 2003)

Not to mention...most of the people who "choose not to breastfeed for personal reasons" seem to have that decision made BEFORE their child is ever born. Have you spoken to a pregnant woman who knows they will formula feed? I have. Have you spoken to a pregnant woman who already knows they won't co-sleep? I have. Heck, that's why people register for cribs while pregnant.

Maybe those who choose not to breastfeed and co-sleep also are choosing to not have a natural birth...not necessarily those who do not have a natural birth being unable to parent in a certain way. It seems to me that those who choose to CIO, not breastfeed, spank, and not co-sleep already *know* that is what they will do. The only time I've ever seen someone who wanted to parent gently and breastfeed, cosleep, etc. and flat out didn't do any of it was because of a traumatic birth that lead to PTSD and the woman was unable to parent in much capacity until the trauma was straightened out. Other than that, most people seem to know what they will and won't do long before the birthing day.

So to me, it seems like choosing mainstream parenting practices during pregnancy (and registering for the equipment like cribs and the like) will generally also choose a mainstream birth. Those who know during pregnancy that they will breastfeed and co-sleep know so during pregnancy (and therefore don't stock up on bottles or buy cribs, etc.) and are more apt to also believe in natural birthing. However those who want to breastfeed and co-sleep but then are unable to have a natural birth...most of those people that I know are still doing natural gentle parenting despite the birth...


----------



## mambera (Sep 29, 2009)

There doesn't seem to be much about this on PubMed. I did find this abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8434272

which reports the results of a survey suggesting that women themselves felt bonding was improved with homebirth or birth-center than hospital birth, but I can't get the full text and I don't see much else on brief survey.

Maybe it's a factor but there are so many other factors that affect bonding I doubt it's The Reason For CIO. And if you want to blame birth stress for poor bonding I'd point a finger more at stressful labor environments than at analgesia. Animals who give birth under stressful conditions are much more likely to neglect (or eat) their young.

Of note, very painful labors can *also* disrupt bonding (in humans and animals) as the mother can see the baby as the source of the pain. So maybe epidurals improve bonding!

My birth experience was pretty good as they go and I didn't have any interventions (labored at home till pushing, then drove fast to hospy barely in time for midwife to catch the baby); but the bonding didn't really happen until around day 3 or 4 I think. I actually sent my kid to the hospital nursery without a qualm (on the very very bad advice of my midwife who said I'd get more sleep that way







). Then it was like a love Niagara fell on me on day 3 and suddenly it seemed like her spot a foot away from me in her sidecarred crib was too desperately far away.


----------



## bebebradford (Apr 4, 2008)

I ended up having hospital births and drugs for both of my children.... As soon as they were born I had the momma bear instinct. I didn't have a 100 percent natural homebirth, but I was madly in love with them instant I saw them. I think some of these ideas floating around here are offensive, and giving women the wrong ideas about birth.


----------



## amberskyfire (Sep 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *georgia* 
Please don't make this personal so this thread can remain on the board. As a natural family living site, and it is expected that members will wish to explore the realities of our experiences, good and bad. No one is judging (general) you by asking if interventive births _can_ lead to difficulties. Research shows that they _can_. It is not a personal condemnation, and it should not be taken as such. If you find yourself reacting personally, please take some time before responding and please keep the User Agreement in mind.

Here are a few articles that might be of interest:

http://www.mothering.com/pregnancy-b...print-of-labor

http://mothering.com/green-living/wh...-family-living

http://www.mothering.com/science-att...cal-roots-love

Please contact a moderator if you have any questions or concerns, thanks!

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU for the links! Those are exactly what I am looking for!


----------



## mambera (Sep 29, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AllyRae* 
So to me, it seems like choosing mainstream parenting practices during pregnancy (and registering for the equipment like cribs and the like) will generally also choose a mainstream birth. Those who know during pregnancy that they will breastfeed and co-sleep know so during pregnancy (and therefore don't stock up on bottles or buy cribs, etc.) and are more apt to also believe in natural birthing. However those who want to breastfeed and co-sleep but then are unable to have a natural birth...most of those people that I know are still doing natural gentle parenting despite the birth...


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amberskyfire* 
Thank you! That's just the kind of anecdotal info that I was looking for.

I'm pretty sure this is sarcastic, and I don't see a need for it. I was very polite and held back any ill feeling about your OP in my response and your suspicion that most people here feel the same way you do.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amberskyfire* 
Do you feel that there was anything in particular that may have caused you to have a hard time the second time around?

I don't really think it's much more than the transition from one to two can be rough. Her birth was much easier, much more enjoyable. I felt empowered, etc... But the lack of sleep with my first didn't effect me, I could nap when he did. When my second was up all night nursing, I had to be awake for my 3 year old during the day.

As far as my birth choices effecting my parenting choices I'm not sure there is a correlation. I didn't buy a parenting book until my son was about 4.5 months old. I just did what felt right. I didn't stress about it, I figured he'd sleep when tired and eat when hungry. I knew I wanted to breastfeed so i took a class when pregnant and got the local LLL number. I never heard of attachment parenting and never strived for any parenting goals. I found the label attachment parenting later and discovered it fit what we had already been doing so I bought Sears Baby Book.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

I think there is a lot of generalizing. I didn't have a lot of experience with gentle methods before I had a child. I was raised in a home where severe physical discipline was commonplace as was harsh criticism and yelling.

I have a lot of issues making jokes in serious situations because that was always my defense mechanism for trying to calm things down growing up.

I have never had a natural birth.

My birth with my son was pretty bad and followed by a NICU stay. I think there was more of a disconnect at the very first because I was a bit shell shocked. I had just spent two weeks at the NICU barely being able to hold my son. It took a lot out of me. I was in so much pain it was hard for me to hold him for extended periods of time.

Just that first night with him sleeping in my arms was just so healing and soothing like I had been covered in bruises.

I certainly don't think I was a bad mother, he certainly wasn't left to cry or anything like that, I was definitely more broken and bruised but anything I would MORE protective MORE insistent on he get what he needs and MORE demanding of getting good care.

Dh would say I started getting a bit hostile and maybe I did but I was very insistent on ds getting what was best for him.


----------



## amberskyfire (Sep 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *artgoddess* 
I'm pretty sure this is sarcastic, and I don't see a need for it. I was very polite and held back any ill feeling about your OP in my response and your suspicion that most people here feel the same way you do.

I don't really think it's much more than the transition from one to two can be rough. Her birth was much easier, much more enjoyable. I felt empowered, etc... But the lack of sleep with my first didn't effect me, I could nap when he did. When my second was up all night nursing, I had to be awake for my 3 year old during the day.

As far as my birth choices effecting my parenting choices I'm not sure there is a correlation. I didn't buy a parenting book until my son was about 4.5 months old. I just did what felt right. I didn't stress about it, I figured he'd sleep when tired and eat when hungry. I knew I wanted to breastfeed so i took a class when pregnant and got the local LLL number. I never heard of attachment parenting and never strived for any parenting goals. I found the label attachment parenting later and discovered it fit what we had already been doing so I bought Sears Baby Book.

No, that wasn't sarcastic. That was exactly what I wanted. There are a lot of issues at hand with the subject. I wasn't taking into account things like adoption.

Sorry if it looked sarcastic, it wasn't


----------



## amberskyfire (Sep 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *abimommy* 
I think there is a lot of generalizing. I didn't have a lot of experience with gentle methods before I had a child. I was raised in a home where severe physical discipline was commonplace as was harsh criticism and yelling.

I have a lot of issues making jokes in serious situations because that was always my defense mechanism for trying to calm things down growing up.

I have never had a natural birth.

My birth with my son was pretty bad and followed by a NICU stay. I think there was more of a disconnect at the very first because I was a bit shell shocked. I had just spent two weeks at the NICU barely being able to hold my son. It took a lot out of me. I was in so much pain it was hard for me to hold him for extended periods of time.

Just that first night with him sleeping in my arms was just so healing and soothing like I had been covered in bruises.

I certainly don't think I was a bad mother, he certainly wasn't left to cry or anything like that, I was definitely more broken and bruised but anything I would MORE protective MORE insistent on he get what he needs and MORE demanding of getting good care.

You are right, I didn't even consider background info like abuses or stresses that may have happened to the mother when she was a child - issues that could definitely color the situation after birth and would very likely have an effect on parenting generally.


----------



## gcgirl (Apr 3, 2007)

I think lack of support and a social network has a lot more to do with parenting difficulties than the birth experience.


----------



## Wildwomyn (Aug 30, 2008)

The difference between having interventions just because someone told you to, or knowingly choosing them for medical reasons was apparently also not taken into account.

Since I assume that I'm at least one of the people who was called out as taking it too personally, I will say that I'm not particularly upset. But I have actually thanked the gods that I wasn't into the natural childbirth at any cost ideal, or I might well have assumed that everthing was just over and wrong after the birth and it didn't matter what I did at that point.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amberskyfire* 
You are right, I didn't even consider background info like abuses or stresses that may have happened to the mother when she was a child - issues that could definitely color the situation after birth and would very likely have an effect on parenting generally.


There is no telling how someone else would react to the same stressors.

I don't think method of child birth is related to that particular issue.

I do think people who might be more drawn towards natural childbirth would also be told to "listen to their instincts" which generally results in more gentle care. They would also be more likely to have researched the issue and been more likely to question the status quo.

Whether or not someone "accomplished" natural childbirth or birthed at all would be unrelated IMO. I would wonder if such studies got the same results in areas where homebirth is the norm.

I think it is more about philosophy, the support one receives and trust in oneself.


----------



## KGB (Jan 30, 2010)

My wife and I just took a childbirth class. The instructor has been a L&D nurse for many years and was also a doula. She mentioned that there has been a swing in the way that births are "managed" in hospitals within the last 3 years or so. Many studies have been done about intimate skin-to-skin contact between mother and baby shortly after birth and they've found that it results in less stress for mother and baby, makes it easier to latch on for breastfeeding, and may potentially have beneficial effects later on. It talks about the importance of the baby feeling the heat from the mother, the heartbeat, picking up on the mother's scent, and hearing the mother's/father's voice. Of course all of this isn't just important ONLY on the day of the birth, but it is afterall a very impressionable time regardless.

They've discovered that the previous generation's methods of cutting the cord as quickly as possible and whisking the baby away to the nursery are potentially detrimental. This makes sense from a nature standpoint since mother's are generally protective of their newborns and a baby that's whisked away might seem to invoke an innate panic/danger response.

This is not a judgement call to mothers that may have had similar experiences, so don't read into it too much.









However, the studies are out there and are interesting regardless. Thankfully, the hospital that we will deliver at reinforces the methods to strengthen the bond between father, mother, and baby shortly after birth. Interventions or no.


----------



## felix23 (Nov 7, 2006)

No, I don't think it plays any part in it. Right now I know three mothers that all had c-sections, all planned to CIO, spank, and the second they had their baby, they changed their mind. This was without reading any AP material.

I also know of two people who had natural home births, read the Dr. Sears books, and still not only practiced CIO with very young babies, but they also followed the Pearls and started spanking when their babies were six months old.









What it came down to was that the second set of people came from religious families that taught that co-sleeping and listening to your baby was a sin. The first group came from families, that even though they CIO and spanked, didn't teach them that doing otherwise was wrong. The family background is way more important then the birth when it comes to parenting.


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gcgirl* 
I think lack of support and a social network has a lot more to do with parenting difficulties than the birth experience.

Yes exactly.

I have three wildly different births, and I had no problem bonding with my babies or parenting them or anything


----------



## limette (Feb 25, 2008)

Anecdotally, my first was a homebirth transfer that resulted in every pain killer available, pitocin and eventually a c-section. I bonded with her straight away and had the baby pinks for months after the birth.

My second was a drug free, intervention free vbac and although I had no trouble bonding with dd2 there was no high like in the first one. In fact I was left wondering what the big deal was in regards to drug free/vaginal birth.

I'm still a great mom regardless of the birth experiences.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KGB* 

This is not a judgement call to mothers that may have had similar experiences, so don't read into it too much.









However, the studies are out there and are interesting regardless. Thankfully, the hospital that we will deliver at reinforces the methods to strengthen the bond between father, mother, and baby shortly after birth. Interventions or no.

You are right, it is really important not to take things personally. Often the message gets drowned out by people being offended and applying all sorts of situations to things. There are exceptions to every rule, which those studies include.









There is no doubt that natural birth is best for the mother and baby. Promoting natural birth isn't an insult to those who did not experience natural birth and is it not condemning anyone as bad mothers.

There are studies backing these issues but it is also good to look at those who are the exceptions as long as people are willing to discuss things rationally and fairly.

I certainly wouldn't want to stick my neck out as someone who never had a natural birth if I am going to feel like people are calling me a bad mother. But of course, no one *is* saying that


----------



## prancie (Apr 18, 2007)

I don't think that parents who do CIO are neglectful. I don't agree with it as a method and I think it may be damaging. However it is a method with purpose and I've never heard a mother who did it who didn't comment that it was hard to listen to the baby cry. I hate it and would never do it, but there is a difference between abject apathy and neglect for a child and a purposeful method with limits and goals.


----------



## AllyRae (Dec 10, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Wildwomyn* 
Since I assume that I'm at least one of the people who was called out as taking it too personally, I will say that I'm not particularly upset. But I have actually thanked the gods that I wasn't into the natural childbirth at any cost ideal, or I might well have assumed that everthing was just over and wrong after the birth and it didn't matter what I did at that point.

Unfortunately, there *are* people that think like that...over and over again here you read people saying that because they didn't get the birth they want that they can't be good moms and shouldn't have the children they birthed. It's really really really tragic that people think that way. Natural birth is wonderful, but it's not the end all and be all of parenting. Nobody should be made to feel like they can't be good parents because their bodies couldn't birth naturally. I can't figure out if that type of mindset is due to the trauma of an emergency birth or due to the mindset that in order to be a good mother, you must birth naturally, breastfeed for 3 years, and never raise your voice. It just doesn't leave room for the fact that sometimes, things don't go as planned. To me, some of the best mothers had to overcome aversities and obsticles and they were such great mothers BECAUSE they could do that with grace and without feeling like an utter failure. Overcoming obsticles at birth is just one of many many obsticles mothers have to overcome!

A lot of it might just be attitude and mind over matter. My youngest baby was a 36 week preterm baby born via c-section and had to be in the nursery for 4 1/2 hours due to breathing issues. I also had the hardest time nursing her. Yet, she's still nursing and we probably have the best attachment of any of my kids. I went into it with the attitude that it was just one day out of many I would have with her and this was my little girl who needed me so very much. I didn't feel like a failure because of my birth with her and I didn't feel like less than a mother because I choose to have a positive attitude about her birth. And because I made that choice, I was able to start bonding as soon as I saw her (well, I was bonding during pregnancy too...







: ) and felt all of those instant lovey dovey maternal feelings. But like I said, I chose to have a great attitude about her birth and I think that helped a lot...


----------



## kitkat5505 (Feb 22, 2005)

For me the statement is not true. Before I had #1 I was a typical mainstreamer, had the typical hospital birth ending in c/s, and only ended up co-sleeping cuz I was too exhausted to do anything else. But I bonded with him instantly, breastfed, and I had no difficulty being a mom. #2 was my only completely natural birth, took longer to bond with, harder to breastfeed, and in general he is harder to parent because of his personality. #3 emergency c/s under general, instant bonding, breastfed easily, again easy to parent him. So in my case all the generalizations got thrown out the window about bonding, breastfeeding, and all that, and the only thing that affects my parenting is my ability to adapt to each child's unique personalities. Even before I got turned onto the AP-type parenting style I loved being a mom and did a good job.


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amberskyfire* 
I just have to wonder what it is that causes so many women to not listen to instinct and instead do things like CIO. There's got to be some kind of underlying issue.


FIrst of all, you need to remember that primate mothering is not, in fact, based primarily on instinctive behaviors. There are some, its true, and there are also hormonal mediators of behavior.

But we're not rats. We're not bugs, we're not mice, we're not cats, we're not goats. We're primates. And it is common across primates, especially the "Higher" ones, that parenting behavior is learned, to the extent that monkeys and apes reared in zoos away from natural family groups actually refuse to parent. Sometimes they *kill* their babies from sheer ignorance of what to do with them after they're born.

DO you see the significance of that? A chimpanzee that has had a "natural" birth, if she has never seen other adult females caring for their babies? Will refuse to nurse her baby. _She doesn't know how._ "Instinct" does not take care of that in primates.

She can *learn* how, though. Zookeepers at one primate research center had human mothers sit outside one pregnant chimp's enclosure every day of her pregnancy, nursing their babies, cuddling them, carrying them -- and when that mother gave birth, for the first time she nursed her baby and did not reject it. She *learned* what she was supposed to do.

"Instinct" is a big word that gets tossed around a lot, and people begin to think that it should work like it does in some birds and lower mammals -- that we should be driven by it to very specific, stereotyped behaviors. When baby opens mouth and peeps, we peck at the dark area to feed it. But we don't work that way. Our "instincts" are largely reactions in our brains giving us the urge to do *something* -- but that's pretty much it. Our babies' cries put us into an stressed state. They make us feel like we should be taking some *action* -- but what action we take is, largely, defined by *culture*. There are many cultures that deny babies nursing in the first 24 hours because they beleive that colostrum is unhealthy. There are cultures in which mothers birth onto the ground and no one is allowed to touch the baby until it cries on its own. Instinct? No. Culture.

And CIO is *cultural*. It grows from _our_ culture's insistence on the importance of independence and sleeping alone. Other cultures may not do it, but may have practices around eating or sex or cleaning that you might find equally shocking or "anti-instinctual." But waht they're doing is "Doing something," as *their culture* defines it.

Finally, before continuing to propagate an untested theory about whether people who have c-sections, or epidurals, or breastfeed a certain number of months, are "better" mothers, it might be a good idea to read some of the other forums here, where women who have read books and websites that say similar things are saying that they have been very, very hurt and damaged by people expressing similar theories to them. Sorting mothers into classes of "better" and "Worse" is something that never, ever goes well.


----------



## SeattleRain (Mar 15, 2009)

I think my main problem with this assertion is that being an AP-parent=being a good parent. There are PLENTY of schools of thought on how to parent children, and plenty of children who grow up non-AP who turn out to be really well-adjusted and normal. The concept of "doing what's natural" is one which is really subjective.

Not breastfeeding, not co-sleeping, and letting your baby CIO doesn't make you a "bad parent" or even a parent who has "difficulty." I reserve the phrase "bad parent" for a parent who beats their children, starves them, or is otherwise abusive. Maybe even one who allows their children to play in the street. I don't think formula constitutes child abuse. I think its a choice some woman made for her child that she thought was the right decision. She probably didn't make it because she had an epidural, she probably made it because she thought it would be easier. I have plenty of friends who formula feed and its not because they don't know there's such a thing as breastfeeding, they just didn't want to do it.


----------



## preemiemamarach (Sep 7, 2007)

thank you for that brilliant post, savinthy!!

As for the OP's theory, the opposite has been true for me. While pregnant with my first, I always assumed he would crib sleep, I would *try* to breastfeed, and honestly had no feelings about CIO one way or another. He was a 33 weeker, born after PPROM and pitocin + epidural, spent 15 days in the NICU, and never was able to breastfeed properly. I had to EP for him for a year, and he has extensive medical problems (I *think* we're up to 20 hospital stays in 32 months, but I may have lost count). We still co-sleep with him, and not once has he ever CIO. Despite his frequent unpleasant (sometimes painful) medical procedures, he is firmly attached to us, and we to him. He is actually an extremely happy kid, and I am bonded to him like I am to no other person on earth.

My daughter (6 months) is EBF. She was born at 37 weeks with nearly no interventions (she was internally monitored for severe decels). No doctor present- in fact, the nurse was only halfway in the room when she was born! I have had a very hard time bonding with her, and developed PPD and PP-OCD when she was 3 months old (I am on meds which have helped tremendously). I love her with all my heart, but the bond I share with my son (and did from the instant I saw him) just isn't there yet.

I have never cared much about 'natural' childbirth (a term I strongly dislike, as if anything other than drug-free homebirth is 'unnatural' and therefore bad)- my biggest goals were (a) a living baby, and (b) getting as close to full term as possible. I have many risk factors requiring medically invasive pregnancies, so when I come out on the other end with a baby, I'm over the moon, regardless of how that baby came out of me.

Yes, I think there are plenty of interventions that take place for the wrong reasons. I also think some people insist on *avoiding* medical interventions for the wrong reasons. To assert that the circumstances of birth dictate the mother/child relationship seems short-sighted at best, not to mention pretty illogical.


----------



## RedOakMomma (Sep 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *texmati* 
I hate to break it to you, but your child's birthday is just one day. You don't need to have a great birth experience to be a good mom. You can have a crappy birth and be a spectacular mom. I am.

Yup.

I've been blessed with two natural births and amazing bonding experiences post-birth with my children, but most of my close friends have given birth with pain meds, or had c-sections, or all of the other interventions you talked about. ALL of them are amazing moms. Truly. They're all fantastic, loving, attentive...from the get-go. A little PPD here and there, but nothing out of the ordinary. PPD has also affected some of my friends with beautiful, natural births.

I don't like the superiority inherent in this kind of reasoning. A natural birth, a home birth, whatever birth, does not make you a superior parent. And as far as CIO and the rest, *I think those attitudes come from the people you surround yourself with*, NOT on what kind of birth experience started you out as a parent.


----------



## freestylemama (Apr 8, 2009)

: I can't even express how "off" this comment is to me. I had an absolutely beautiful, peaceful, lovely midwife attended water birth and had a really difficult time transitioning to motherhood. The notion that a natural birth makes a natural mother is laughable to me. I've definitely adapted to being a mom, but it wasn't an easy road. I have lots of friends who had c-sections who were just natural moms and everything was totally easy peasy for them.


----------



## amberskyfire (Sep 15, 2007)

Thanks for the info, everyone!

So far, I have read one Mothering article that was suggested by a mod and it was right on target with what I was looking for. I'll have to read the others after we paint some pictures, make cookies, and chase the dog around the yard a bit









Here is the article, in case anyone was interested:

http://www.mothering.com/pregnancy-b...print-of-labor

and I also updated my original post with captions from the article for those just joining who might also be interested in what the research shows.

And, as always, personal experience is always welcome. Not everybody fits into the majority and there are all kinds of differing personal experiences.


----------



## accountclosed3 (Jun 13, 2006)

as opposed to a "good/bad" or "better/worse" sort of "judgemental splitting" would it be fair to say that for some people, mothering comes "easier" than for others?

i find mothering to be a very easy job. that could be because a b-zillion factors from learned behaviors, education, personality type, whatever.

in my experience, women with all sorts of parenting theories, birth experience, support networks or lack thereof, etc etc etc can be "good" or great mothers. but, for them, mothering may be "easy" or "difficult" depending upon their circumstances and experiences.

for example, it is very easy for me to completely disregard other's opinions about how and when and where i breastfeed my son. this comes from a lot of things--my natural personality is pretty much i dont' care what anyone else thinks. establishing our BFing relationship was a bit of work (and very little compared to some other women so i don't really even consider it "difficult" just that it was what was necessary and a little more work than i expected--though i had intuitive nudges about two-three weeks before the birth to be concerned about BFing), and so i really focus on DS's nursing needs and no one's opinions.

so, there could be a lot of reasons why mothering is easy for some and not easy for others. and, i think that exploring how women feel birth may or may not have impacted whether or not they found mothering easy (with this child, the next, or the next), would also be interesting.

but it's not about whether or not it is "easy" makes it "good" or "bad." just women sharing what was easy or difficult for them in regards to mothering and why that might be so in their experience.


----------



## Jaesun's Dad (Feb 19, 2010)

We planned for a natural birth, but part of that planning was preparing for a hospital birth should that be necessary. We prepared a birth plan in writing and took a tour of the back up hospital "just in case". It turns out that we needed to transfer to the hospital, which was San Francisco General. I don't have any comment on the food they tried serving DP, but otherwise we were well treated and the hospital itself is "Baby Friendly" they went over our written birth plan with us before doing anything and overall the experience, while not what we ultimately hoped for, was a pretty positive one. In fact, going on the fifth day of an excruciatingly difficult prodromal labor getting checked into the hospital at the time was a welcome relief. For DP I know that an epidural was one of the last things she wanted, but when the time came and she resigned to it, that was a very welcome relief too. Immediately after our son was delivered he did need to be suctioned (meconium) but I was able to follow him over to where they did that, cut the cord myself and though I'm sure he didn't see much I could swear he looked at me and recognized me amidst all these doctors poking at him and I think we shared a special few seconds there as he sorted dad from the doctors then within a minute or so I was able to carry our son in my arms over to my exhausted partner and place him in her arms where he remained pretty much full time until we left the hospital the next day. He was skin to skin within minutes and almost immediately he was breastfeeding as well. We discharged about 18 hours after delivery so we didn't really stick around to let many people poke at either DP or DS.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *texmati* 
You don't need to have a great birth experience to be a good mom. You can have a crappy birth and be a spectacular mom.

While I don't think we had a crappy birth, I completely agree. It wasn't what we had wanted but everything turned out well in the end. Even if emergency C was necessary (and it was getting pretty close to being necessary) I don't think it would have changed how we handled being new parents and our bonding/parenting methods once we got home.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gcgirl* 
I think lack of support and a social network has a lot more to do with parenting difficulties than the birth experience.

Yes. Sadly. I wish we had more of a support network.


----------



## Sk8ermaiden (Feb 13, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RedOakMomma* 
I don't like the superiority inherent in this kind of reasoning. A natural birth, a home birth, whatever birth, does not make you a superior parent. And as far as CIO and the rest, *I think those attitudes come from the people you surround yourself with*, NOT on what kind of birth experience started you out as a parent.


This is exactly right. Some people who subscribe to this philosophy will write off anyone who disagree as "offended" or "taking it personally." I am no more offended than if you asked if blondes made better mothers - because I think the notion is that ridiculous. It's the smugness and superiority that come with questions like this that put me off. Even planning my homebirth, at my most gung-ho natural birth, tell everyone about it, it's so awesome, I would NEVER have thought to insinuate that people who did not do it would make lesser mothers.

And savithny's post was fantastic and spot on. It is our culture and values that make us the mothers we are, not our births.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *savithny* 
FIrst of all, you need to remember that primate mothering is not, in fact, based primarily on instinctive behaviors. There are some, its true, and there are also hormonal mediators of behavior.

But we're not rats. We're not bugs, we're not mice, we're not cats, we're not goats. We're primates. And it is common across primates, especially the "Higher" ones, that parenting behavior is learned, to the extent that monkeys and apes reared in zoos away from natural family groups actually refuse to parent. Sometimes they *kill* their babies from sheer ignorance of what to do with them after they're born.

DO you see the significance of that? A chimpanzee that has had a "natural" birth, if she has never seen other adult females caring for their babies? Will refuse to nurse her baby. _She doesn't know how._ "Instinct" does not take care of that in primates.

She can *learn* how, though. Zookeepers at one primate research center had human mothers sit outside one pregnant chimp's enclosure every day of her pregnancy, nursing their babies, cuddling them, carrying them -- and when that mother gave birth, for the first time she nursed her baby and did not reject it. She *learned* what she was supposed to do.

"Instinct" is a big word that gets tossed around a lot, and people begin to think that it should work like it does in some birds and lower mammals -- that we should be driven by it to very specific, stereotyped behaviors. When baby opens mouth and peeps, we peck at the dark area to feed it. But we don't work that way. Our "instincts" are largely reactions in our brains giving us the urge to do *something* -- but that's pretty much it. Our babies' cries put us into an stressed state. They make us feel like we should be taking some *action* -- but what action we take is, largely, defined by *culture*. There are many cultures that deny babies nursing in the first 24 hours because they beleive that colostrum is unhealthy. There are cultures in which mothers birth onto the ground and no one is allowed to touch the baby until it cries on its own. Instinct? No. Culture.

And CIO is *cultural*. It grows from _our_ culture's insistence on the importance of independence and sleeping alone. Other cultures may not do it, but may have practices around eating or sex or cleaning that you might find equally shocking or "anti-instinctual." But waht they're doing is "Doing something," as *their culture* defines it.

Finally, before continuing to propagate an untested theory about whether people who have c-sections, or epidurals, or breastfeed a certain number of months, are "better" mothers, it might be a good idea to read some of the other forums here, where women who have read books and websites that say similar things are saying that they have been very, very hurt and damaged by people expressing similar theories to them. Sorting mothers into classes of "better" and "Worse" is something that never, ever goes well.

I think you make a really good point.


----------



## texmati (Oct 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sk8ermaiden* 
This is exactly right. Some people who subscribe to this philosophy will write off anyone who disagree as "offended" or "taking it personally." I am no more offended than if you asked if blondes made better mothers - because I think the notion is that ridiculous. It's the smugness and superiority that come with questions like this that put me off. Even planning my homebirth, at my most gung-ho natural birth, tell everyone about it, it's so awesome, I would NEVER have thought to insinuate that people who did not do it would make lesser mothers.

And savithny's post was fantastic and spot on. It is our culture and values that make us the mothers we are, not our births.

nak. ITA with this post.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

I haven't read past the first page.

I can't speak for anyone else. For _me_, not labouring with dd1 definitely affected my parenting. I basically "did the motion until I felt the emotion" with her. I don't like to think about it, honestly. I adore her, and I was a good mom by my actions, but my mental state was...not great. I tried to have that baby for 10 years, and then when she got here, I was just...flat. It broke my heart.

It doesn't seem to happen for everyone, though (which, honestly - just makes me feel worse - I must just inherently be a crappy mom, yk?).


----------



## limette (Feb 25, 2008)

How does this work for mom's that do not birth their own children (adopotive, mom's using surrogates etc) and dad's? They aren't getting any natural birthing rush to make them good parents.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AllyRae* 
Unfortunately, there *are* people that think like that...over and over again here you read people saying that because they didn't get the birth they want that they can't be good moms and shouldn't have the children they birthed. It's really really really tragic that people think that way. Natural birth is wonderful, but it's not the end all and be all of parenting. *Nobody should be made to feel like* they can't be good parents because their bodies couldn't birth naturally.

"Made to feel"? By whom? That's how I felt, and I wasn't "made to feel" that way by some mysterious outside agency.

Quote:

I can't figure out if that type of mindset is due to the trauma of an emergency birth or due to the mindset that in order to be a good mother, you must birth naturally, breastfeed for 3 years, and never raise your voice.
??
Why must it be either?

Quote:

It just doesn't leave room for the fact that sometimes, things don't go as planned. To me, some of the best mothers had to overcome aversities and obsticles and they were such great mothers BECAUSE they could do that with grace and without feeling like an utter failure.
Well, I'm not a great mother. Maybe it's because I have no grace, and did, in fact, feel like an utter failure.

Quote:

Overcoming obsticles at birth is just one of many many obsticles mothers have to overcome!
That's probably true. If I'd ever overcome anything at birth, I might feel qualfied to express a stronger opinion.

Quote:

A lot of it might just be attitude and mind over matter. My youngest baby was a 36 week preterm baby born via c-section and had to be in the nursery for 4 1/2 hours due to breathing issues. I also had the hardest time nursing her. Yet, she's still nursing and we probably have the best attachment of any of my kids. I went into it with the attitude that it was just one day out of many I would have with her and this was my little girl who needed me so very much. I didn't feel like a failure because of my birth with her and I didn't feel like less than a mother because I choose to have a positive attitude about her birth. And because I made that choice, I was able to start bonding as soon as I saw her (well, I was bonding during pregnancy too...







: ) and felt all of those instant lovey dovey maternal feelings. But like I said, I chose to have a great attitude about her birth and I think that helped a lot...
This is one of the most condescending, dismissive and insulting posts I've read on this subject in a looonnnng time.


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sk8ermaiden* 
This is exactly right. Some people who subscribe to this philosophy will write off anyone who disagree as "offended" or "taking it personally." I am no more offended than if you asked if blondes made better mothers - because I think the notion is that ridiculous. It's the smugness and superiority that come with questions like this that put me off. Even planning my homebirth, at my most gung-ho natural birth, tell everyone about it, it's so awesome, I would NEVER have thought to insinuate that people who did not do it would make lesser mothers.

And savithny's post was fantastic and spot on. It is our culture and values that make us the mothers we are, not our births.

yes. and yes to what savinthny also said.


----------



## Wildwomyn (Aug 30, 2008)

I do not know why I was so basically ok with needing to have a c-section, but I'm sure it wasn't because I 'chose to.' It's not that simple. Just like it's not that simple that Right Birth=Good Parent.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

I think there is a lot of truth to "mind over matter"

Of course PPD is real and people need that support and help but one also has to WANT to get better. One cannot just wallow in misery and think it will happen.

I had a pretty hard time in between my kids and I thought I was DONE. I was miserable, I couldn't do anything, I hurt all the time, I could not sleep there was just a lot of things going wrong.

Of course my dh reacted badly and said to "snap out of it" but instead I went to the Dr. I ended up being diagnosed with a chronic illness and my dh realized how destructive his attitude was. PPD was NOT in my head, it is very real. Whether "wanting" to get better means exercising, taking the meds you might need, eating better, taking your vitamins, or any other things that might help.

It isn't easy and no one can drag us into mental health. That is our path and one has to pick their foot up and put it in front of their other foot. No one can do it for you, they should certainly help. But they cannot make you.

With my son, I really had my heart set on a VBAC, I was really trying to do everything right and everything went wrong. If I blamed myself for that, rather than a genetic fluke I would truly be miserable.

PPD, PPP and many other conditions are very real. But there is much to be said for "wanting" to get better. It doesn't work on its own, but it is a part of the process.


----------



## BookGoddess (Nov 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *savithny* 
FIrst of all, you need to remember that primate mothering is not, in fact, based primarily on instinctive behaviors. There are some, its true, and there are also hormonal mediators of behavior.

But we're not rats. We're not bugs, we're not mice, we're not cats, we're not goats. We're primates. And it is common across primates, especially the "Higher" ones, that parenting behavior is learned, to the extent that monkeys and apes reared in zoos away from natural family groups actually refuse to parent. Sometimes they *kill* their babies from sheer ignorance of what to do with them after they're born.

DO you see the significance of that? A chimpanzee that has had a "natural" birth, if she has never seen other adult females caring for their babies? Will refuse to nurse her baby. _She doesn't know how._ "Instinct" does not take care of that in primates.

She can *learn* how, though. Zookeepers at one primate research center had human mothers sit outside one pregnant chimp's enclosure every day of her pregnancy, nursing their babies, cuddling them, carrying them -- and when that mother gave birth, for the first time she nursed her baby and did not reject it. She *learned* what she was supposed to do.

"Instinct" is a big word that gets tossed around a lot, and people begin to think that it should work like it does in some birds and lower mammals -- that we should be driven by it to very specific, stereotyped behaviors. When baby opens mouth and peeps, we peck at the dark area to feed it. But we don't work that way. Our "instincts" are largely reactions in our brains giving us the urge to do *something* -- but that's pretty much it. Our babies' cries put us into an stressed state. They make us feel like we should be taking some *action* -- but what action we take is, largely, defined by *culture*. There are many cultures that deny babies nursing in the first 24 hours because they beleive that colostrum is unhealthy. There are cultures in which mothers birth onto the ground and no one is allowed to touch the baby until it cries on its own. Instinct? No. Culture.

And CIO is *cultural*. It grows from _our_ culture's insistence on the importance of independence and sleeping alone. Other cultures may not do it, but may have practices around eating or sex or cleaning that you might find equally shocking or "anti-instinctual." But waht they're doing is "Doing something," as *their culture* defines it.

Finally, before continuing to propagate an untested theory about whether people who have c-sections, or epidurals, or breastfeed a certain number of months, are "better" mothers, it might be a good idea to read some of the other forums here, where women who have read books and websites that say similar things are saying that they have been very, very hurt and damaged by people expressing similar theories to them. Sorting mothers into classes of "better" and "Worse" is something that never, ever goes well.

I agree.









I had a c-section with DD. I don't have any regrets about it. It was necessary. I feel such a fierce love for her beyond anything that I thought I was capable of. We still co-sleep and we practice attachment parenting. My c-section had no impact on the way I feel about her or the way I parent.


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

I should add, in case my "creds" make a difference as to whether you listen:

2 unmedicated hospital births, including a spontaneous FER of a 10#3oz baby.
Nursed both. Bonded immediately and intensely with both... I still remember the first night with #1, unable to sleep, staring at him in amazement and wonder that this was my baby and he was *here*.

I can honestly say that _none_ of my friends who gave birth in a hospital have described their first reaction to motherhood as overwhelmingly fearful as you describe. Some described some anxiety at going home and being alone with the baby for the first time -- but that right there speaks to my big post above - human mothers do best with role modeling and support from experienced mothers.

FWIW, the local hospital leaves baby on mom's belly for up to an hour post birth and then performs necessary checks in mom's arms if possible and in the room definitely.


----------



## Jennifer Z (Sep 15, 2002)

I am a little taken aback that people would actually judge an entire motherhood by how a few hours at the beginning happened.

FTR, I started my first labor with plans of a natural child birth, but felt like something wasn't quite right. I was right. He was in totally the wrong position and wouldn't engage in my pelvis at all. Not even close. I had an epi, thank goodness, because a few hours later we started losing his heartbeat during contractions and I was rushed (literally, running the gurney to the ER and cutting as the drop cloth was being set up) for an emergency c-section, he was blue (first APGAR=2). Then my blood pressure dropped out too. I actually don't really remember much of that first week because I was so sick and traumatized. He was an extreme high needs baby and never was out of arms for the first year or more. (he even slept on top of me because he couldn't sleep without movement)

My second was a planned c-section, with multiple complications, the biggest being pre-eclampsia. (also throwing up multiple times a day, not gaining weight, and generally being sick as a dog the whole pregnancy). Her birth was healing and wonderful after the first terrifying experience.

A close relative's birth was in a commune, the midwife on call but not in the room, delivered in a warm pool with her husband catching. A dream birth...candles, music, outdoors, UC.

I cloth diapered, baby wore, nursed my first until 5.5yo, my second is 4.5 and still occasionally nurses, my oldest had only organic whole foods and no sugar for the first few years, I homeschool, I am totally into gentle discipline and have two wonderful, peaceful, energetic kids.

The relative with the "perfect birth" cloth diapered for a week, but decided it was too much a PITA, had a sling, but never used it (used the bucket seat and actually hardly ever held him), stopped breastfeeding in a week, never really bonded to him, and eventually actually gave up her parental rights (which, honestly, was the best thing she could have done given the circumstances) to the father because she wanted to travel from commune to commune and a baby wasn't convenient for that lifestyle to her.

How the first day of parenting went has no relationship to how the rest of the lifetime goes. None. I have also never heard of or experienced being afraid of the baby at birth. I was afraid *for* my baby...blue and lifeless will do that to you, but once he pinked up and started crying, that fear was gone. I was nervous and excited, but not afraid.


----------



## accountclosed3 (Jun 13, 2006)

for my own part, i had that feeling of "omg! i'm completely and totally responsible for the care of this being!" moment when my parents left after their first visit.

i had a pleasurable, unassisted homebirth.

i don't know if it was 'fear' as i generally experience fear differently, but it was an overwhelming sense of responsibility and awe.

personally, i found mothering to be easy. i found the changes in the adults and our family dynamics to be very difficult. and, i found the lack of recognition from everyone to be very difficult and emotional.

when i say lack of recognition, i mean that my mother and father would talk about how he looked so much like my sister and how exicted my sister is to be an aunt and how much my sister loves him (even before she'd even met him), and so on and so on. my ILs talked about how he looked so much like DH or their relatives.

once he was born, it was as if i ceased to exist to them, and that apparently my DH and my sister had somehow hatched him and the reason that he is so happy, healthy, well adjusted, and all of that other stuff is because of how much they were helping out (you know, visiting once a week and holding him) and how great my sister and my DH were.

my day-in, day-out work (which i loved and found easy), and my connection with my child (he has my body type, a similar sense of humor, a similar physicality, and a similar love of food and sleep) were never acknowledged or mentioned, and at times, it was as if i didn't exist at all. For example, if you look at the pictures my ILs took each week for the first 6 weeks of my DSs life--i'm not in *any* of them. in some, they had me pose, but i'm actually cut out of frame!

that built a lot of resentment in me, and there was frustration, and a bit of depression too.

i love my son dearly, an fiercely protective, and a confident mother. I am happy to mother; but i was not happy with the sudden invisibility i experienced.


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

I can't believe somebody is insinuating -- on MDC, of all places, where we are supposed to be respectful of others' experiences and perspectives -- that my birth was any less right than hers. Or that it made me any less of a mother.

Seriously, the OP is making an extremely insulting allegation here.

I had the MDC ideal birth the first time around. A medically necessary c-section the second. The very suggestion that I couldn't mother my second child as well as the first because of the way she was born is appalling.

I suppose adoptive mothers can't cut the mustard either. Indeed.


----------



## accountclosed3 (Jun 13, 2006)

i think that the moderators have already asserted, and the OP herself, that she is not insinuating that one can't be a good mother without a natural birth.

Rather, she is wondering whether birth experiences and/or interventions in birth--whether necessary or not--can impact the mother's ability to mother by making it more difficult for her.

Level of difficulty in mothering doesn't mean that one mother is better than another. I know women who have had difficulty mothering (as per their own descriptions) who are amazing mothers to their children. I also know women who (like me) have it easy in mothering, and I know that they are amazing mothers (i like to think that i am too, but who knows).

so, i think that if we move forward with that point--whether or not one's own birth experience made mothering more difficult or not--then it will be a more interesting conversation.

not to moderate or anything, just to say, we could talk about the interesting issues of Primate Parenting is Learned Parenting.


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 
I can't believe somebody is insinuating -- on MDC, of all places, where we are supposed to be respectful of others' experiences and perspectives -- that my birth was any less right than hers. Or that it made me any less of a mother.

Seriously, the OP is making an extremely insulting allegation here.

I had the MDC ideal birth the first time around. A medically necessary c-section the second. The very suggestion that I couldn't mother my second child as well as the first because of the way she was born is appalling.

I suppose adoptive mothers can't cut the mustard either. Indeed.

Unfortunately, I don't know if the OP is still listening. It _looks_ like she got a link to one article that she believes entirely supports her original theory, is satisfied with that one viewpoint, and is no longer following the rest of the conversation?


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zoebird* 
i think that the moderators have already asserted, and the OP herself, that she is not insinuating that one can't be a good mother without a natural birth.

Rather, she is wondering whether birth experiences and/or interventions in birth--whether necessary or not--can impact the mother's ability to mother by making it more difficult for her.

Level of difficulty in mothering doesn't mean that one mother is better than another. I know women who have had difficulty mothering (as per their own descriptions) who are amazing mothers to their children. I also know women who (like me) have it easy in mothering, and I know that they are amazing mothers (i like to think that i am too, but who knows).

*so, i think that if we move forward with that point--whether or not one's own birth experience made mothering more difficult or not--then it will be a more interesting conversation.*

not to moderate or anything, just to say, we could talk about the interesting issues of Primate Parenting is Learned Parenting.

It's a ridiculous point. One day does not a mother make. You could never in a million years convince me that a baby's journey through the birth canal makes mothering easier.

It's one day. ONE DAY.

I dare you to line up ten women in a room and pick out which ones gave birth vaginally in a yurt while chewing on a stick, and which ones were knocked out cold in the OR with eighteen medical professionals standing around, on the basis of their mothering skill set.


----------



## AllyRae (Dec 10, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 

This is one of the most condescending, dismissive and insulting posts I've read on this subject in a looonnnng time.


I'm sorry you feel like that was condescending...it wasn't meant to be. I know you don't know me from adam on this board, but for me, there was a lot of truth to the matter. My first birth was horrible. I ended up with PPD afterwards. My second birth was horrifying and tragic and resulted in the death of my son and a huge legal battle and me spending years dealing with PTSD afterwards. A natural homebirth was absolutely out.of.the.question for me. A c-section was my only option after that. When my daughter was about to be born, I had a choice to make...I could choose to be resentful and angry over the fact that her brother's death is resulting in her being born a c-section and feel like my body failed me and therefore I was not worthy of her, or I could accept the fact that she would be born a c-section, work to make it as best an experience as I could, and own that as the beginning to her story. As much as I never never never wanted a c-section and I really wanted that natural birth, I did my best throughout my pregnancy with her to go into it with a positive attitude. If I would have gone into it angry and resentful, I don't know that I could have bonded with her as quickly as we did.

But that's my story. For me, it *was* mind over matter. I could have felt backed into a corner and like a failure and let that affect how I felt about my daughter, or I could work to make it the best experience I could have. Trust me, for a long time, I thought that wouldn't be possible...we wanted to adopt all of our future children (and did adopt one) because I didn't know if I could make a c-section a good experience and the experience of our son's death was so traumatic. But, when we were surprised with Amelia's pregnancy, I had to make a decision as to how I would deal with her birth.

It might not be the same for everyone. But, I do know that for some people, a positive attitude can make a world of difference. Obviously I'm not talking about really traumatic births. Losing a child or almost losing your life is not really something that easily lends to a positive attitude, obviously.


----------



## franciemack (Jun 12, 2008)

It is worth pointing out that the crux of the argument, that c-section mothers are inferior, is based on a completely unsubstantiated theory of Michel Odent.

Bonding with your baby is an incredibly complex interplay of culture, situation, temperment of mother, child, support systems, family of origin. Reducing it to a single hormone is a ridiculously simplistic view of childbirth and parenting.


----------



## Joyster (Oct 26, 2007)

I think equating a person's ability to parent based on their birth experience is akin to basing their ability to parent on a moment in the grocery store.









I hang out with a wide variety of people. One of my friends has had one c section, one non med and one epidural. Her kids are some of the strongest attached kids ever. Three completely different births, three strong bonds, one strong family. Her first was a c-section to boot.

My two children were delivered differently. I just followed my instincts with them both and it seems to have proven well. Hoping for a non-med birth with number three, but if something happens, I refuse to be ashamed or think of myself anything less as a mother or my ability to parent based on the birth. It's an important moment, but if you ask my 4 year old, it's probably not the most important moment in our relationship.


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Joyster* 
I think equating a person's ability to parent based on their birth experience is akin to basing their ability to parent on a moment in the grocery store.









I hang out with a wide variety of people. One of my friends has had one c section, one non med and one epidural. Her kids are some of the strongest attached kids ever. Three completely different births, three strong bonds, one strong family. Her first was a c-section to boot.

My two children were delivered differently. I just followed my instincts with them both and it seems to have proven well. Hoping for a non-med birth with number three, but if something happens, *I refuse to be ashamed or think of myself anything less as a mother or my ability to parent based on the birth.* It's an important moment, but if you ask my 4 year old, it's probably not the most important moment in our relationship.









Good for you. Threads like this make it hard, sometimes, though.

I totally get that the culture of this forum is pro-natural childbirth. I'm as pro-natural childbirth as it gets. But not to the point where I think it's okay to post threads implying that you can't be a good mom if you don't have one.

And if anybody thinks that's not what's going on here, please refer to the title of the thread.


----------



## readytobedone (Apr 6, 2007)

I agree. Birth is one day, and while that day _may_ have a big impact on the next day, and the next, and the next...3 years out, it already matters very little. I can only imagine that 30 years out, the circumstances of birth hardly matter at all.

This is not to denigrate people's efforts to get the births they want. I tried very hard for the same (didn't work out for me, but that's another thread). But to think having a natural birth will put you in a better position to mother, forever...that's just silly.


----------



## Sk8ermaiden (Feb 13, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 
I totally get that the culture of this forum is pro-natural childbirth. I'm as pro-natural childbirth as it gets. But not to the point where I think it's okay to post threads implying that you can't be a good mom if you don't have one.

Oh, the OP clarified, it's just _harder_ to be a good mom if you don't have one.









And since that's the thread she asked us to expound on, mothering is the most natural and wonderful thing I've done. I've had difficulty with things all my life, but mothering came as natural as sunrise.


----------



## bubbamummy (Feb 25, 2009)

I had a 'natural birth' with DS. NOT by choice at the time. I was all for epidurals a planned c-section even entered my mind a few times during pregnancy. I knew I would give breastfeeding a 'go' but wasnt hell bent on it. Then I had such a speedy, easy labor I had him completely naturally, no IV's no nothing. I then began to research more into childbirth as it interested me, id been through it. I did co-sleep out of necessity but I never 'wore' him, he had formula a few times, I left him when ever I could to 'get a break' but even so I was/am a 'good mommy'

With this baby its so far looking like a planned c-section due to 'breechness' which im not thrilled about, now I know i can do it I wanted another natural birth..but ho hum, what will be will be...will having a c-section make me a suddenly 'worse mother' to this baby...I doubt it, infact since DS's birth ive become much more 'educated' on certain issues and will probably be a better mother in terms of MDC-things







I plan to baby wear this next baby, actually breastfeed 100% instead of pumping for 11 months, I 'plan' on co-sleeping instead of just kind of falling into it through sheer exhuastion, cloth diapering my new baby (didnt with my son until he was 14 months)

so im not sure what consitutes a 'good mother' but even if this baby ends up being a c-section birth i am 100% sure i will be as good a mother as I have been to my son and in many ways probably 'better' as poor DS was my practise baby


----------



## accountclosed3 (Jun 13, 2006)

obviously, you are not reading me properly.

i asserted "whether or not the birth experience impacted mothering for the individual."

you cannot speak for every individual woman. and, each individual woman can determine for herself and express for herself whether or not the birth experience that she had impacted her mothering (made it more difficult or easy in her opinion).

you can speak for yourself and assert that 1. your birth experience did not impact the level of difficulty or ease in your mothering, and also 2. that in your opinion, birth doesn't impact women's experience of difficulty or ease in mothering in general. (this is what i perceive you to be asserting.)

for myself, my birth experience does impact how easy i find mothering. it is not the only reason that i find mothering easy, but i believe it is one of those reasons.

likewise, i think that the negative experience of the change in family dynamics also "pushed" me more into focusing on mothering. It was the only real positive thing that i was experiencing at that moment, and so i really focused on it because it felt good to be doing something positive that felt good. Another reason might be that my son is a very healthy, easy going baby.

This is not to say that i am "better" than anyone else as a mother--regardless of birth experiences, difficulty in mothering that they may experience, familial experiences, or whether or not their child is high needs or easy going like my guy--most mothers are, or strive to be, "good moms."

I am interested in hearing from individual women whether or not they feel, think, or believe that their birth experiences impacted their mothering.

----

what i'm also really thinking about is that situation of primates learning from each other. I parent in a way that is very much unlike every young woman whom i know personally. I know very few women who are parents at all (many of my friends choose to be childless or simply do not have children yet). some of my friends have grown (teen and older) children.

i have been a participant on mothering.com for years, unassistedchildbirth.com, and i have read a number of books and articles on EC, UC, BFing etc. I did have to learn to breast feed with an LC, as my son had trouble latching (too strong, kept pushing out the nipple so we had to train him to draw it in). but before he was born i spent very little time with pregnant women, breastfeeding women, and ECers in person.

i went to one EC gathering about 1 week before DS's birth; i went to 1 LLL meeting after his birth (when he wasn't latching and before i got to a LC); and i taught a bit of prenatal yoga before i was pregnant and during but didn't really "learn" about parenting in these ways.

i'm just wondering what the 'exposure' to learning it needs to be or is. is it "enough" to learn through the web site, magazine, and books? a few minutes with a lactating, nursing woman or an ecing one?

anyway, it's interesting to me.


----------



## accountclosed3 (Jun 13, 2006)

and for the heck of it, we could also explore other factors such as partnership situation, age, pregnancy experience, friendship experiences, familial experiences, educational opportunities (related to child rearing), and a variety of other topics to determine whether or not they had an effect on the individual woman's ease or difficulty in mothering.

i think education is an interesting one. a friend of mine said to me 'there's so much conflicting information out there, i don't know what to do!' in that moment, her mothering was difficult because she felt overwhelmed by information. later, when she had relaxed and processed a bit, she knew that she wanted to do X, and doing X was actually an easy act of mothering for her because she knew it was right.

so, the ease and difficulty of mothering can also be a shifting process. it might be easy in some ways and difficult in other ways, and it may shift from easy to difficult and difficult to easy depending upon what is happening in the moment in the process of mothering.

mostly, i like reading different people's experiences.


----------



## smeisnotapirate (Aug 24, 2007)

My birth experience absolutely affected my ability to mother. I spent every waking moment trolling MDC, planning my natural waterbirth, and after 3 days of labor ended up with a c-section for FTP. I was devastated. DS and I had a miserable time establishing nursing, and I really didn't do much bonding with him until WAY later. Mothering has been VERY difficult for me, not at all what I'd call "natural" or "delightful."

That being said, I think it was my feelings about my birth that affected my ability to mother. The fact that I didn't feel like I was in control with my birth was the biggest obstacle to me. I felt like a failure for being a healthy 23 year old woman with no risk factors who couldn't birth a baby vaginally, and THAT perception was what made it difficult for me to bond with DS. Not the c-section itself.


----------



## crunchy_mommy (Mar 29, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amberskyfire* 
BUT, mothers who tend to be good mothers also usually learn about gentle parenting practices in advance. If we read about these things and know they are not good, then we know ho to implement gentle techniques before the birth.

Do you think that a mother who knows about attachment parenting before the birth of her child might stand a better chance than a mother who doesn't know what might happen yet? Do you think that women who have never heard that things like CIO are bad would know on their own? I don't know for a fact, but wonder if perhaps these mothers who have had their authority taken away in the beginning might just listen to bad advice because they feel unsure of themselves.

I did not know a thing about AP before DS was born. In fact, I didn't even know it existed. I planned for a drug-free all-natural birth but for serious personal reasons this was not possible for me. I had lots of drugs, an epidural, and a vacuum extract, and DS was whisked away from me at birth. I will tell you, the SECOND he was back in my arms I never once put him down. I never planned to co-sleep and in fact I stayed up all night the 3 nights we were in the hospital because I knew the nurses wouldn't "approve." I didn't have a birth high or anything, I was actually very traumatized by labor & birth. I never let DS cry. I was fiercely protective of him. I slept beside him every night. I breastfed him even though I had people pushing formula & pacifiers in my face from the day he was born. I went against every professional opinion given to me. I was surrounded by "mainstream" people and I simply didn't fit in. I hadn't researched or prepared to be AP -- I just WAS. My maternal instincts kicked in & I went with it.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amberskyfire* 
I just have to wonder what it is that causes so many women to not listen to instinct and instead do things like CIO. There's got to be some kind of underlying issue.

I don't think it has anything to do with epidurals or c/s. I think it's got to do with the society we live in. Every day many of us hear messages that go against every instinct we have. Many people have a hard time going a separate course. Me, I don't care what people think. I don't care what everyone else does and I don't care if I'm popular etc. Maybe a bit but not the way I've seen others care (not enough to buy $100 jeans or watch all the latest movies or whatever). I think a lot of AP parents have a similar mentality, relying more on instincts than society. Plus there is the "doctor worshipping" I see going on with mainstream parents -- the DOCTOR said let him cry (DS's old pedi actually said this about 2 week old DS because he was eating every 20 minutes!!), the DOCTOR said do this, etc.

Sure a natural, drug-free, intervention-free birth is great for many reasons but I'm sorry, I don't think this is one of them.

ETA: Another factor that became blatantly obvious to me once I joined this forum, is that AP moms tend to be more interested in natural birth. I think you've got a chicken & egg scenario here... I would attribute any correlation to the fact that an AP mom chose to have a natural birth, NOT that someone had a natural birth & it 'made' them AP.


----------



## RedOakMomma (Sep 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 
I dare you to line up ten women in a room and pick out which ones gave birth vaginally in a yurt while chewing on a stick, and which ones were knocked out cold in the OR with eighteen medical professionals standing around, on the basis of their mothering skill set.

























Having thought about this thread overnight, I think the problem is in how it was phrased....the "My birth made me a better mom" idea.







I do think there is a lot to the idea that trauma at birth can cause problems for a mom that make it a lot harder to adjust to motherhood. Not that it will mean that the mom has less mothering skills, or will do a poor/lesser job, but just that it's one more thing for a mom to overcome. To me, that's where the mom's connections and support systems really start to matter. Does she have people around her who are helping her, people around her who are modeling good mothering skills and supporting her choices/desires for parenting?

Edited my own experience out. I don't want to be a part of this effort.


----------



## CherryBomb (Feb 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sk8ermaiden* 
I agree with the previous posters. It is almost like natural birthers can't just take that natural birth is an awesome thing. Natural birth has to be an awesome thing and any other form of birth has to be an awful, terrible thing that scars you and your baby for the rest of your lives. It gets old.












I bonded more quickly and more strongly with dd2, who born via c/s with an APGAR of 2, was having seizures, and was immediately taken to the NICU. I didn't get to hold her until she was 5 days old or nurse her till she was 11 days old. I loved her intensely from the moment she was born. Michael Odent can







I don't love my VBA2C baby more than my c/s babies, and I just absolutely reject the notion that one moment defines who I am as a mother.

I think when women spend their whole pregnancies hearing that they MUST give birth a certain way to be a "real" mother and a "real" woman, THAT'S what causes problems. I never felt bad about my first c/s until other people told me I should. I take responsibility for allowing people to influence me like that, but it's hard to ignore that when you're young (I was only 18 when I had dd1) and trying to figure out how to parent and where you fit in.


----------



## RedOakMomma (Sep 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CherryBomb* 
I think when women spend their whole pregnancies hearing that they MUST give birth a certain way to be a "real" mother and a "real" woman, THAT'S what causes problems.

I agree with this whole-heartedly. I think this perception is especially common among the AP community, even if people don't say it outright. It's a shame.

.


----------



## CherryBomb (Feb 13, 2005)

And you know, what about teenage girls that give birth unassisted and then kill their babies and hide their bodies in dumpsters? Obviously having a "natural" birth didn't cause them to have this magical, immediate, perfect bonding with their babies.


----------



## Hatteras Gal (Jun 1, 2004)

I think too many women, especially on this board, put way too much stock in what kind of birth they had/are going to have. I don't think the way I birthed my children has anything to do with how I bonded with them. I had 2 c/s and there was no problem with bonding or with how easy it was to parent. The bonding happened before the birth for me. It mattered not one bit how they came out.


----------



## Masel (Apr 14, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amberskyfire* 
That is very interesting! Thanks for sharing your experience









Did you know about gentle parenting techniques before you adopted?

Our home study required us to examine the discipline methods used on DH and me as children and how we planned to parent. We also had to sign a contract saying we would not use corporal punishment. As far as attachment parenting goes the adoption community seems much more aware of attachment issues than the general public. We had tons of family support and have a lot of crunchy friends. I didn't hear the term "gentle parenting" until relatively recently but we were on that path.

Five years ago when we were waiting for DD1 this site alienated me terribly. Biology of birth and breastfeeding seemed to be the be all of parenting. I am so glad since the reboot a couple years ago that we can talk about other aspects of being a mother. It wasn't just a birth that made me a mom or the judge who finalized the adoption.


----------



## felix23 (Nov 7, 2006)

Can we all agree that non-natural birth doesn't = difficulty being a mother and natural birth doesn't = ease being a mother? Because the title of this thread is non-natural birth = difficulty being a mother and the answer is a huge NO.

Sometimes the birth experience can cause difficulty with mothering, but that includes both natural and non-natural births. I agree with zoebird that whether or not the birth impacts mothering is up to the individual, but a negative impact can happen with a natural birth too. It is not saved for just non-natural births.


----------



## AllyRae (Dec 10, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CherryBomb* 

I think when women spend their whole pregnancies hearing that they MUST give birth a certain way to be a "real" mother and a "real" woman, THAT'S what causes problems. I never felt bad about my first c/s until other people told me I should. I take responsibility for allowing people to influence me like that, but it's hard to ignore that when you're young (I was only 18 when I had dd1) and trying to figure out how to parent and where you fit in.


Exactly. And then mothers who have c-sections are told that they didn't really give birth to their child (sorry to break it to you but the *only* child I didn't birth was the one I adopted...my c-section birth was still a birth). Of COURSE if someone is mentally beaten down by being told they aren't a real woman and that they didn't birth their child--the doctor did...of *course* problems with mothering can happen. It's sad what women will do to eachother. It takes a village...and in that village we should all be supporting eachother on the mothering journey--not deciding that one can only be a good mother if they follow a certain path. All three of my children are parented by me the same...the one I birthed vaginally, the one I adopted, and the one I birthed by c-section.


----------



## Joyster (Oct 26, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 
Good for you. Threads like this make it hard, sometimes, though.

I totally get that the culture of this forum is pro-natural childbirth. I'm as pro-natural childbirth as it gets. But not to the point where I think it's okay to post threads implying that you can't be a good mom if you don't have one.

And if anybody thinks that's not what's going on here, please refer to the title of the thread.

A couple of years ago, I might have read this thread and felt really bad about myself. Maybe I'm just too tired or too grumpy to care anymore how the details of my birth affect me in the here and now. All I know is that I have two happy, healthy, bright well loved little boys, who make me smile everyday and so far my approval rating with my constituency is running high (I made pancakes this morning







)

I also was thinking of how my mother parented and what I've learned from her. She smoked and drank with me in the womb. She had an epidural. I was formula fed right from the get go. She was a chain smoker. My diet was highly processed, endless TV and I was left unsupervised big time. I didn't have a regular doctor til I was 12 Some folks here would look at this picture and would be chomping at the bit to call CPS.

What's untold was, that my mom and I lived well below the poverty level. She was raised in an abusive, neglectful home. My father was abusive to her. I was born at a time where the affects of smoking while pregnant/with kids was just coming out and largely available to middle/upper classes. My mom was exhausted, because she worked endlessly as a waitress to support us and we lived in the inner city community. I've never in a day in my life ever doubted her love, she never hit me, took a lot of crap from my father on my account, she catered to my every emotional need, she worked hard and strived to give me what little she could and I would have died were I separated from her.

Does it make her a lousier mother than someone else who is 100% crunchy? I don't think so, she did the best with what information and resources she had. She parented differently, that is for sure, and I do lots of things WAY differently than her, but I have money, time, resources, a supportive husband, education and her foundation of love, support and attachment.

It's just so easy to judge whether someone is a good or better parent or how easy it is to parent based on a few arbitrary things (and sadly, I see it all the time here, I don't usually engage though), but I think that line of thinking is too simple. Maybe it's my background in social work, or my core beliefs, but there is usually way more to the story.


----------



## MegBoz (Jul 8, 2008)

Haven't read all the replies, but,

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amberskyfire* 
Most moms don't know anything about CIO. They take all of this bad advice maybe because they had this experience in the hospital and they don't know where to turn, *so they hear what the authority tells them and they believe it,* which can lead to these parenting practices.

Emphasis mine.
THIS is the issue... _blindly trusting *any* authority!_ Just look at the Milgram experiments. Look it up.
(I think that's really what you're getting at here, too.)

That's the problem. A good mama has to think for herself. Failure to think for yourself & use your brain as well as using your instincts rarely leads to good parenting (or anything good, for that matter.)


----------



## delfin (Jul 11, 2007)

It's hard to engage in this conversation without getting into the "birthing competition".
To put my POV, first a disclaimer: I won't speak for the few cases where serious interventions are neccesary and life saving.

I think that a medicalized birth, when there is no need for it, is a link in a chain. It is not the cause for difficulties in mothering, but another symptom, another manifetation of the infantilization of women. Women have been told they are to trust blindly in anybody(a man, often) wearing a uniform.
We are given guidelines to educate our children that have nothing to do with love and connection, and are from the mindset that children are enemies, that they "need to learn who's the boss". Many women go into mothering robotized, without a bit of confidence in themselves. The way a women gives birth is not the cause of this disconnection, since she probably went into pregnancy disconnected, and maybe it comes from way earlier. Since we menstruate we receive messages of using this or that product to "forget we are in 'those'days". I believe is part of the same.
So i believe that there is a link between the birth and the mothering, not always of course. The woman who is experiencing difficulties in mothering is experiencing difficlties with herself first, and inability to hear herself and to mother from a place of altruism
Hope it makes sense. My english is not so good.
I had a planned HB that eneded in transfer. Pitocin, epidural, C section. I kept my baby on me all the time, and I felt sad for the way things turned out.


----------



## Tulafina (Feb 11, 2007)

n/m


----------



## kitkatkaddoodle (Apr 24, 2008)

I have not read the whole thread because I have a feeling I can guess how it will run. My two cents are that through the history of the world, anesthesia and other "non-natural" interventions that modern women can have were unavailable. That didn't stop poor parenting, infanticide, child abuse, abandonment, or rather iffy bonding. I don't think epidurals and c/s are the root cause of parenting issues.

Besides, even though I labored and delivered without an epidural (though we did have a vacuum assist), my husband felt none of the hormones that flooded my body, and yet he bonded with my son instantly, head over heels, where I loved my son in abstract but took a while to fall in love-love with him specifically. And my not becoming infatuated with him at first look had nothing to do with the birth and more to do with me--I am not someone who falls for anything or anyone all that quickly, though it didn't take him long to wrap me around his tiny tyrannical finger.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AllyRae* 
I'm sorry you feel like that was condescending...it wasn't meant to be. I know you don't know me from adam on this board, but for me, there was a lot of truth to the matter. My first birth was horrible. I ended up with PPD afterwards. My second birth was horrifying and tragic and resulted in the death of my son and a huge legal battle and me spending years dealing with PTSD afterwards. A natural homebirth was absolutely out.of.the.question for me. A c-section was my only option after that. When my daughter was about to be born, I had a choice to make...I could choose to be resentful and angry over the fact that her brother's death is resulting in her being born a c-section and feel like my body failed me and therefore I was not worthy of her, or I could accept the fact that she would be born a c-section, work to make it as best an experience as I could, and own that as the beginning to her story. As much as I never never never wanted a c-section and I really wanted that natural birth, I did my best throughout my pregnancy with her to go into it with a positive attitude. If I would have gone into it angry and resentful, I don't know that I could have bonded with her as quickly as we did.

But that's my story. For me, it *was* mind over matter. I could have felt backed into a corner and like a failure and let that affect how I felt about my daughter, or I could work to make it the best experience I could have. Trust me, for a long time, I thought that wouldn't be possible...we wanted to adopt all of our future children (and did adopt one) because I didn't know if I could make a c-section a good experience and the experience of our son's death was so traumatic. But, when we were surprised with Amelia's pregnancy, I had to make a decision as to how I would deal with her birth.

It might not be the same for everyone. But, I do know that for some people, a positive attitude can make a world of difference. Obviously I'm not talking about really traumatic births. Losing a child or almost losing your life is not really something that easily lends to a positive attitude, obviously.

I've done all that, and for many of the same reasons (working to be as positive as I could about my c-sections - the ones I had warning about - as I possibly could, especially my last one, after my son died). It worked...sort of. I still don't think it's as simple as "choosing" to be okay with it. And, oddly enough, the two sections (my third and fifth) that I went into with the best attitude are also the two that have left me with the long-term (possibly permanent) physical damage. "Choosing" to be okay with a lot of this stuff is a very, very long, drawn-out process, which makes the term "choice" a bit iffy, imo. You can choose to work to be okay with something. - you can't choose to _be_ okay with it.


----------



## loveneverfails (Feb 20, 2009)

I'm going to agree wholeheartedly with *CherryBomb*. I think the issue isn't any certain kind of birth, although obviously *trauma* is going to create a factor that can impact bonding for better or for worse, sometimes both. Natural does not mean untraumatic. Medicalized does not mean traumatic. Whether there has been physical or psychological violence done to the mother at any point during the childbearing year is a valid issue for me, although it is impossible to predict how that will impact ease of bonding. For some people, going through a traumatic experience with a specific child will make it easier to hold that child closer. You just can't know.

The thing I hate the most and see as the biggest barrier to maternal bonding is the idea of conditional rights to parenthood, where you only have a right to a baby if X, Y, Z. That goes for being too young, too poor, too old, too single, etc or whatever qualification you need to meet this week. You don't earn motherhood. You don't earn relationships with people. A beautiful baby you are bonded to isn't a reward only deserved by people who have waited until they were 28 years old with a white picket fence and 2 cars and 2 careers, and conceive during the lunar eclipse, and give birth in the forest with a woodchuck as a birth attendant.


----------



## Xavismom (Dec 22, 2009)

I also agree, that the 'type' of birth you have, in no way determines your mothering. For two examples (mainly for the OP to read if she's still following this) I'll use myself, and one of the only people I know IRL that did a homebirth.

For my birth, I did have a NCB in a hospital. It pretty much went exactly how I wanted it to go (other than DS needed to be stimulated right after birth, and have his cord cut early) he was out of my arms for less than 2 min. Our hospital was 'baby friendly', so we had immediate skin to skin, breastfeeding within 15 min of birth. DS was never ever taken from me, everything was 'done' with him in my arms.

This being said, while I was _totally in love_ with this little guy, I was TERRIFIED of being a mother. Just completely out of my mind scared about it. I was scared to hold him, change his diaper. I was scared to move his head to position him for breastfeeding. I was scared to change his clothes. Thankfully he has never been a crier, because just his mewling and fussing would scare the bejesus out of me. I could not sleep at all I was so scared he would die if I did. I checked his breathing about every 10 min whenever he slept (and we all know how much newborns sleep omg!!)

DS did have a huge bone bruise on his head, and he had clogged tear ducts. One day about 2 weeks PP, I couldnt get his shirt off easily, and I looked at him with his head bump and crusty eye and I just lost it. I broke down, litterally rolling on the floor and rocking myself like a crazy person bawling about what an awful mom I was and how I was unfit to be a mother. My mom and my DH had NO idea what to do with me.

Thankfully, this bad period ended about a week later, and now I feel like I AM a great mom. But I'm just saying here, I had a beautiful NCB, and I had this happen to me.

Also, for my other example, one girl I know IRL, did a NCB. She had her baby at home. She only breastfed for about 3 months, and went to formula by choice after that, and she does CIO.

But her parents did CIO, and her siblings all do CIO. I dont think CIO has anything to do with birth.

And to further add to that, I dont CIO, and my mom never did CIO with me. So even though I had a hell of a hard time PP, I never even considered CIO an option.


----------



## amberskyfire (Sep 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *felix23* 
Can we all agree that non-natural birth doesn't = difficulty being a mother and natural birth doesn't = ease being a mother? Because the title of this thread is non-natural birth = difficulty being a mother and the answer is a huge NO.

Sometimes the birth experience can cause difficulty with mothering, but that includes both natural and non-natural births. I agree with zoebird that whether or not the birth impacts mothering is up to the individual, but a negative impact can happen with a natural birth too. It is not saved for just non-natural births.

I think you are probably right! Still looking for research, but based on moms in the natural parenting community, they haven't had any problems much of the time.


----------



## Logan's mommy (Jan 19, 2007)

I haven't read the whole thread, but I will add my experiences.

With ds1 I was 18, not ready at all to be a parent, knew nothing about the AP aspect of parenting, the thought of bfing grossed me out (no flames please!!), and was terrified to be in pain. So I went into the hospital knowing I was going to get an epidural as soon as I could, which I did. I had gestational diabetes, and ds1's sugar was EXTREMELY low, so I got to hold him for just a few minutes then he was whisked away to the NICU and put on a sugar drip for 3 days. I really felt no connection to him and had a hard time bonding with him and accepting the fact that I was now a mother. I think it had less to do really with interventions and more to do with the fact that I was young and not really ready or excited about becoming a mother.

With ds2 I had been introduced to MDC and all things AP and natural. I was married and wanting another child. I was overjoyed to find out I was pregnant. I knew right away I wanted a natural birth and was going to bf. I also didn't know the sex of ds2 before his birth. He was still born in a hospital because of GD, but he had no complications from it and I got to hold and bond with him for an hour before the nursery took him to clean him up. I had no epidural or drugs of any kind and felt an immidiate bond to him.

I still look back and feel awful for the way I felt about ds1, but I try not to dwell because now I love him and his brother more than life itself and would do anything for them.


----------



## amberskyfire (Sep 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Logan's mommy* 
I haven't read the whole thread, but I will add my experiences.

With ds1 I was 18, not ready at all to be a parent, knew nothing about the AP aspect of parenting, the thought of bfing grossed me out (no flames please!!), and was terrified to be in pain. So I went into the hospital knowing I was going to get an epidural as soon as I could, which I did. I had gestational diabetes, and ds1's sugar was EXTREMELY low, so I got to hold him for just a few minutes then he was whisked away to the NICU and put on a sugar drip for 3 days. I really felt no connection to him and had a hard time bonding with him and accepting the fact that I was now a mother. I think it had less to do really with interventions and more to do with the fact that I was young and not really ready or excited about becoming a mother.

With ds2 I had been introduced to MDC and all things AP and natural. I was married and wanting another child. I was overjoyed to find out I was pregnant. I knew right away I wanted a natural birth and was going to bf. I also didn't know the sex of ds2 before his birth. He was still born in a hospital because of GD, but he had no complications from it and I got to hold and bond with him for an hour before the nursery took him to clean him up. I had no epidural or drugs of any kind and felt an immidiate bond to him.

I still look back and feel awful for the way I felt about ds1, but I try not to dwell because now I love him and his brother more than life itself and would do anything for them.

So sorry you had a bad experience the first time around







My cousin had a similar issue, but didn't have GD. Her son is much older, though, about 20 months, and she still hasn't been able to bond with him. She loves him more than the whole world, but she never really knows how to deal with him or how to take care of him.

She and her husband are talking about having another (I'm not sure why, but my mother says it's because she wants to have her kids young, so maybe she wants to get over the births and early years now) so I'll tell her your story. Maybe it will reassure her that not every experience is going to be the same and she may not have as much trouble with her second.

I'm curious, though. Do you feel that it was a hormonal thing that you had an easier time the second time around, or do you feel as though it had more to do either with having already had a baby or perhaps joining MDC?


----------



## Logan's mommy (Jan 19, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amberskyfire* 
So sorry you had a bad experience the first time around







My cousin had a similar issue, but didn't have GD. Her son is much older, though, about 20 months, and she still hasn't been able to bond with him. She loves him more than the whole world, but she never really knows how to deal with him or how to take care of him.

She and her husband are talking about having another (I'm not sure why, but my mother says it's because she wants to have her kids young, so maybe she wants to get over the births and early years now) so I'll tell her your story. Maybe it will reassure her that not every experience is going to be the same and she may not have as much trouble with her second.

I'm curious, though. Do you feel that it was a hormonal thing that you had an easier time the second time around, or do you feel as though it had more to do either with having already had a baby or perhaps joining MDC?

I think it may have been a combination of things. Having a child already and knowing what to expect, being married and having the support that was lacking with ds1, and MDC.

I hop whatever your cousin and her dh decide works out for them.


----------



## felix23 (Nov 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amberskyfire* 
I think you are probably right! Still looking for research, but based on moms in the natural parenting community, they haven't had any problems much of the time.

See, I could say the exact same thing about mom's in the mainstream communities I'm involved in, they haven't had any problems much of the time either.

Having a non-natural birth does not automatically cause difficulties being a mother. Period. To say otherwise is extremely insulting to those of us who have had non-natural births and did not have any problems mothering.


----------



## Talula Fairie (Jan 7, 2005)

Haven't read the replies, but I have to respond.

I have always doubted this theory, and when I had my third baby it confirmed my suspicions. While epidurals do cause all sorts of issues, they do not, in my experience, cause you to feel any differently about your baby. I felt just as protective over my first two babies as I did over my third. There wasn't one iota of difference. I had an epidural for my first two births but had my third at home naturally.

I understand the reasons behind this theory, but I just don't think it's that simple. Also, while you release oxytocin in labor, you also realease it in smaller amounts while nursing. Even just holding your baby causes some release.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Hatteras Gal* 
I think too many women, especially on this board, put way too much stock in what kind of birth they had/are going to have. I don't think the way I birthed my children has anything to do with how I bonded with them. I had 2 c/s and there was no problem with bonding or with how easy it was to parent. The bonding happened before the birth for me. It mattered not one bit how they came out.

I don't think that people put too much stock in natural birth, maybe some but I think those are the minority. Natural birth is just better for you. It doesn't make any of us who might have had c/s any failures as women or less able parents. Having one's appendix removed doesn't make you a failure as a person because your appendix didn't last, neither does having a mastectomy make one a failure as a woman because their boobs tried to kill them. It is just what it is.

I have had two c/s and given the chance I would attempt VBAC, not because birth defines me or I want to be able to mark a spot on my crunchy card bingo but because I don't like having surgery. It makes me puke and the recovery can be difficult. I get really bad adhesions, my body just really likes to make scar tissue. Puking right after abdominal surgery is horrible.

There are many many reasons why I would VBAC but absent from the list is because I think it would make me a better woman or parent.


----------



## Encinalien (Mar 27, 2007)

Excuse me if I'm wrong but it looks as if your applying the old "nature vs. nurture" debate where people have considered the importance of a child's upbringing vs. their genetic predispositions in determining how they'll turn out. *It looks like you're applying the same theory to "the birth of a mother". *How does the treatment of the child in front of the mother during her highly suggestable post-partum hours affect how she parents. *And does that have more impact than research and education?

If so, you could look at the countries that offer longer baby-moons and whose doctors prefer natural deliveries when possible to research your hypothesis. *
I'm too brain-dead to remember any off hand, but I know they're mentioned in various birth stories. *I think Sweeden was mentioned. *Anyway, ask for a list of natural-birth friendly countries in Birth and Beyond. *I'd leave out the third world countries with cultural differences as the main influence. *Then you can research those cultures and compare notes.*

In my opinion natural birth is more for the health benefits. *Supposedly the healing is quicker and more complete for the mother with a natural water birth.

Semi-OT: some MDC'ers were discussing a book a while ago that suggested ease or difficulty in parenting comes from whether the parent and child's natural personalities clash or compliment each other. *Very possible if children are really people too. *I've heard various parents say, "I love all my children, but this one drives me crazy. *I love him to death, but he drives me nuts."


----------



## alfabetsoup (Jun 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amberskyfire* 
I think you are probably right! Still looking for research, but based on moms in the natural parenting community, they haven't had any problems much of the time.

This is kind of a horrible thing to say. You might as well say, 'I think parents who don't do NCB/AP/NFL are crap parents.' Most parents are doing the best they can and need support, not judgement. Good luck with your research.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hablame_today* 
Semi-OT: some MDC'ers were discussing a book a while ago that suggested ease or difficulty in parenting comes from whether the parent and child's natural personalities clash or compliment each other. *Very possible if children are really people too. *I've heard various parents say, "I love all my children, but this one drives me crazy. *I love him to death, but he drives me nuts."

I think there's a lot of truth to this, actually. I found the early days with ds1 really hard, but I found it easy to mesh with him. DD1 was really, really, really difficult for me to deal with as a baby, because none of my usual tools (nursing, rocking, singing, etc.) worked _at all_ - walking was the best, and I physically couldn't do it for more than a few minutes at a time for the first couple of weeks. DS2, however, is the hardest one, by far. He was an easy baby, but he's a very challenging child. I adore him - aside from the fact that he's my son, he's a very sweet, engaging, lovable little boy - but he also drives me around the bend several times a day!


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CherryBomb* 
I think when women spend their whole pregnancies hearing that they MUST give birth a certain way to be a "real" mother and a "real" woman, THAT'S what causes problems.

It depends on the person. I'd had two cesareans, and was pregnant with my third, before I met anyone (aside from my mom, who never said a word unless I brought it up first) who even agreed with me that it sucked. I didn't feel like a real woman or a real mother, and it had absolutely _nothing_ to do with being told that by anybody else. I had no idea anybody else felt that way about it at all.

I mean, seriously - if this idea only comes from other people putting it in women's heads, then where did it come from in the first place?


----------



## accountclosed3 (Jun 13, 2006)

Tulafina:

Thanks for sharing your story. It is very brave to share our hardships, because there is a lot of judgement that happens towards women when they do not show how everything was blissful.

I remember those first few weeks of struggling with the new family dynamics. people would ask how i felt being a mother, and with mothering, it was great, but "being a mother" was crap because of how my family was behaving like crazies! i felt i couldn't talk about it and was pretty ashamed for a bit too.

it took a lot for me to start talking about it--about a year actually--and now i don't feel shame at all. it's just what happened and i did my best with it.

when you shared your story, i could see myself reflected. our stories were different in many ways of course, but i see my own feelings of my own difficulties at the time. i see how we share things in common, including a desire not to share that truth.

but the truth of our experiences--good and bad--helps to set all of us free. it helps "not mom's yet!" learn about some of the things that happen. . .not to discourage but to encourage them to reach out and speak their truth and know that they won't be judged for whatever difficulties they do face, no matter the origin of those difficulties.

thank you for sharing.


----------



## accountclosed3 (Jun 13, 2006)

smeisnotapirate:

have i mentioned i love your handle before? anyway, i love it.

aside from that, i really think that what you said is very valuable. a lot of women have been talking about "failing" in birth around me lately, or failing in their HB or UC or even natural birth because they had an epi or whatever!

i wrote in another thread that i don't believe birth is a pass/fail event, but i do know that the idea comes from a lot of quarters (medical profession, "mommy wars" and so on).

it is a difficult burden to carry, and i thank you for sharing how that idea impacted you.

----------

personality differences between parent/child does sound like another interesting idea as to what might make parenting easy/difficult. definitely plausible!

it's part of the reason why i question whether or not i even want another child. everything with this guy went so perfectly--did i just get lucky? was it something that i do or did? KWIM?

i ask, can i catch lightening in a bottle twice? because mothering is hard work, even though i find it easy and fun to do, i don't know if i want to do more of it at this easy level, let alone run into difficulties in it. I dont' know if i'm communicating that right. LOL

anyway, yeah, doubts are good.


----------



## smeisnotapirate (Aug 24, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zoebird* 
smeisnotapirate:

have i mentioned i love your handle before? anyway, i love it.

aside from that, i really think that what you said is very valuable. a lot of women have been talking about "failing" in birth around me lately, or failing in their HB or UC or even natural birth because they had an epi or whatever!

i wrote in another thread that i don't believe birth is a pass/fail event, but i do know that the idea comes from a lot of quarters (medical profession, "mommy wars" and so on).

it is a difficult burden to carry, and i thank you for sharing how that idea impacted you.









Thanks!

It took me a long time to not see the way my birth happened as a failure. It took me a long time to realize that the cards were stacked against me and I did the best I could with what I had. I hope every mom who is disappointed in her birth comes to that, regardless of how she birthed. It's really allowed me to come to this VBAC from a place of excitement instead of dread.


----------



## amberskyfire (Sep 15, 2007)

The topic is getting derailed a little bit so I just wanted to try to get things back on track for those still with us.









The original question was, in short, if anyone knew of any research that shows a correlation between non-natural birth and mothers who have difficulty bonding with their babies after the birth.

We know for a fact that oxytocin and prolactin are not released in the same large amounts during medicated and surgical birth as during natural birth. We also know for a fact that many mothers have a lot of trouble bonding with their babies and that this can cause some mothers to have a lot of difficulty in the early days of motherhood. We know that oxytocin and prolactin are primal mothering hormones. It is therefore not irrational to question whether there may be a possible relation between the two in women who have difficulties.

The discussion is not about whether mothers love their children or about "good" and "bad" moms, nor is it about parents who choose to do CIO months down the road. The question is about bonding immediately after birth and those first crucial days of motherhood.

No one is saying mothers who do not have natural births are failures.
No one is saying mothers who do not have natural births are bad mothers.
No one is saying mothers who do not bond with their babies are bad mothers or that mothers who bond with their babies are good mothers.
No one is saying that if you have a non-natural birth that you are not going to bond with your baby.
No one is stereotyping or labeling anyone here.
No one is saying that anyone does not love their baby or will NOT bond with their baby in future.

If you disagree with the theory, that's fine and definitely let me know why you think so. Personal experience is perfect. You can agree or disagree. You can even call me crazy if you want to, that's your opinion.

It isn't fair, however, to put unrelated words in someone's mouth or accuse them of saying or insinuating horrible things which they never did. It would be great if we could stick to the subject because bringing in personal issues that are unrelated in order to blame someone else just isn't fair.

It isn't fair to those who are accused who did not say it, it isn't fair to those who are just joining who skim over the initial post and then read the replies and are inflamed by them and post thinking that's what the issue is, and it especially isn't fair to those mothers who DID have problems bonding with their babies and who might be interested in finding out if there may have been a correlation. It's not fair for these moms to feel like someone is labeling them as a "good" or "bad" mom because of their birth experience.

So if we can focus on birth bonding immediately after birth and refrain from saying "good" or "bad mom," that would be awesome!







We are ALL mamas here and we ALL love our babies. (And bonding stories about adoption are related, too, so DO share your experience if you immediately bonded with your adopted child)


----------



## pragmaticme (May 8, 2009)

Let's recap the central tenet of the first post:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amberskyfire* 
I have strong suspicions that these actions may be creating a lack of ability to mother in these new mothers. I hear too many women say that after their baby was born, they were "scared" or they were unsure of themselves or did not know what to do. Often, they do not understand their babies cries. Many of them put their own wants and desires before the biological needs of their babies (ie: CIO, putting the baby in another room, not wanting to breastfeed for personal reasons). It seems as though because these women were not allowed to bond with their babies in hospital, they lost the ability to mother properly.

The argument is that woman who do not have natural births, are, among other things: scared, have an inability to mother, are selfish, and refuse to breastfeed.

I can't possibly imagine why some women are offended.









And for the record, I am a c-section mother of twins who is bonded very nicely with my EBF girls.


----------



## amberskyfire (Sep 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pragmaticme* 
Let's recap the central tenet of the first post:

The argument is that woman who do not have natural births, are, among other things: scared, have an inability to mother, are selfish, and refuse to breastfeed.

I can't possibly imagine why some women are offended.









And for the record, I am a c-section mother of twins who is bonded very nicely with my EBF girls.

The post is in reference to new mothers who have difficulty bonding with their babies, not ALL mothers. The discussion is not suggesting that all mothers have problems bonding with their babies. As I stated, it is not saying that if mothers do not birth naturally, they will have problems. It is asking the question if there is a correlation between non-natural births and women who DO have problems. If a woman has problems bonding, can it be related to their birth? That is what I am asking.


----------



## kitkatkaddoodle (Apr 24, 2008)

As I said, medicated labors are a recent invention, and not everyone worldwide gets the option or uses it, and yet difficulty bonding and parenting are and have always been present among the population who have labored and delivered without those medications. There is no proof that the number of poorly attached mothers has increased from the past, nor that, all other factors weighed, those women who have medicated deliveries have more immediate issues bonding or parenting than those that did not have medication.

I do think a traumatic birth can often affect bonding, but traumatic can happen in medicated or nonmedicated births both.


----------



## gurumama (Oct 6, 2002)

You would have to define "non-natural" birth in careful detail for any research to be valid. And control for all factors that could bias the research.

And where are these hospitals that take the baby away right after birth (except for c/s or complications?). I've had three vaginal births in 3 different hospitals over an 11-year stretch, 2 births were completely unmedicated, and I cut the cord twice (DH did the other), put all 3 babies to chest immediately, was encouraged to breastfeed, never rushed to bathe the baby, handed the baby off for bathing/weighing/measuring an hour or more after birth, etc.

These were at three very different hospitals (Brigham and Women's, Leominster, and Newtown Wellesley, for those who know the Boston area). First was with an OB, last two with two different CNM practices.

How would a researcher classify my births in terms of "natural" vs. "non-natural". If you have an unmedicated, non-induced or augmented birth with no vaginal exams and one intermittent fetal monitor strip done before giving birth (ds2 for me), is that a "natural" birth, vs. ds3 with whom I was induced from 1cm due to a dying placenta, but with whom I labored for 28 hours, 16 on Pitocin, but had no pain meds of any kind and who was put to breast immediately and stayed with me?

The devil is in the details for researchers to define "natural" vs. "non-natural".


----------



## amberskyfire (Sep 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gurumama* 
You would have to define "non-natural" birth in careful detail for any research to be valid. And control for all factors that could bias the research.

And where are these hospitals that take the baby away right after birth (except for c/s or complications?). I've had three vaginal births in 3 different hospitals over an 11-year stretch, 2 births were completely unmedicated, and I cut the cord twice (DH did the other), put all 3 babies to chest immediately, was encouraged to breastfeed, never rushed to bathe the baby, handed the baby off for bathing/weighing/measuring an hour or more after birth, etc.

These were at three very different hospitals (Brigham and Women's, Leominster, and Newtown Wellesley, for those who know the Boston area). First was with an OB, last two with two different CNM practices.

How would a researcher classify my births in terms of "natural" vs. "non-natural". If you have an unmedicated, non-induced or augmented birth with no vaginal exams and one intermittent fetal monitor strip done before giving birth (ds2 for me), is that a "natural" birth, vs. ds3 with whom I was induced from 1cm due to a dying placenta, but with whom I labored for 28 hours, 16 on Pitocin, but had no pain meds of any kind and who was put to breast immediately and stayed with me?

The devil is in the details for researchers to define "natural" vs. "non-natural".

Good question! Not only because different people might define "natural birth" differently, but because I imagine that not all interventions or interventive drugs would have an impact on release of oxytocin and prolactin.

I'm assuming that in this case, the study would have to be done on women who do not receive interventions which are known to have these effects on hormones, but I would have to see how the study in the previous link was done. I'm not sure how they defined "natural birth."


----------



## Drummer's Wife (Jun 5, 2005)

I don't know of any studies, but it almost sounds like you are doing your own research here - SOoo, anecdotal, but I have had four c-sections and definitely did not have a hard time bonding with my babies. They were with me in recovery, and breastfed within half an hour of being born - so maybe the hormones at that point played a role? I don't know that it really matters, though, since I am pretty sure even if I had adopted them at birth (so no oxytocin there!), I would have fallen in love and had just as easy of a time mothering a sweet, precious baby.

Also, fwiw, I can think of someone who had a natural (med-free, vaginal) birth who had a hard time bonding as well as ended up with PPD.

There are just way too many factors, IMO, to give so much value to the method of birthing in regards to bonding and ease of parenting.

(I haven't read past he first page, yet, but can say the idea is a tad offensive to me b/c of my c-sections.)


----------



## amberskyfire (Sep 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Drummer's Wife* 
I don't know of any studies, but it almost sounds like you are doing your own research here - SOoo, anecdotal, but I have had four c-sections and definitely did not have a hard time bonding with my babies. They were with me in recovery, and breastfed within half an hour of being born - so maybe the hormones at that point played a role? I don't know that it really matters, though, since I am pretty sure even if I had adopted them at birth (so no oxytocin there!), I would have fallen in love and had just as easy of a time mothering a sweet, precious baby.

Also, fwiw, I can think of someone who had a natural (med-free, vaginal) birth who had a hard time bonding as well as ended up with PPD.

There are just way too many factors, IMO, to give so much value to the method of birthing in regards to bonding and ease of parenting.

(I haven't read past he first page, yet, but can say the idea is a tad offensive to me b/c of my c-sections.)

Also, I'm reading "The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding" published by LLL which is talking about how breastfeeding causes women to release these mothering hormones so even if a women has had a cesarean or an interventive birth, the breastfeeding can possibly overcome some bonding issues which may arise.

There's a lot more to it than I had first suggested and there have been several studies done that are linked to different aspects of it. I was kind of hoping for one study that covered more than just one or two bases, but it's looking like there are too many aspects involved that they hadn't thought to put into just one study, so the fundamental question may go unanswered.

And even if it was true, the benefits are looking as though even if it is linked (which some studies suggest, but do not outright claim) there are still other ways for mothers to overcome bonding difficulties much of the time.

The research is important to me personally because I'm studying to be a midwife and I think that I want a good portion of my practice to center around not only helping the mother deliver, but also helping her overcome bonding issues and postpartum depression, whether she gives birth with me or if she has to be transferred to a hospital. If some hospital procedures might be involved, I want to know what they are and what I can do to help the women in my care have as few problems as possible.


----------



## felix23 (Nov 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amberskyfire* 
The topic is getting derailed a little bit so I just wanted to try to get things back on track for those still with us.









The original question was, in short, if anyone knew of any research that shows a correlation between non-natural birth and mothers who have difficulty bonding with their babies after the birth.

We know for a fact that oxytocin and prolactin are not released in the same large amounts during medicated and surgical birth as during natural birth. We also know for a fact that many mothers have a lot of trouble bonding with their babies and that this can cause some mothers to have a lot of difficulty in the early days of motherhood. We know that oxytocin and prolactin are primal mothering hormones. It is therefore not irrational to question whether there may be a possible relation between the two in women who have difficulties.

The discussion is not about whether mothers love their children or about "good" and "bad" moms, nor is it about parents who choose to do CIO months down the road. The question is about bonding immediately after birth and those first crucial days of motherhood.

No one is saying mothers who do not have natural births are failures.
No one is saying mothers who do not have natural births are bad mothers.
No one is saying mothers who do not bond with their babies are bad mothers or that mothers who bond with their babies are good mothers.
No one is saying that if you have a non-natural birth that you are not going to bond with your baby.
No one is stereotyping or labeling anyone here.
No one is saying that anyone does not love their baby or will NOT bond with their baby in future.

If you disagree with the theory, that's fine and definitely let me know why you think so. Personal experience is perfect. You can agree or disagree. You can even call me crazy if you want to, that's your opinion.

It isn't fair, however, to put unrelated words in someone's mouth or accuse them of saying or insinuating horrible things which they never did. It would be great if we could stick to the subject because bringing in personal issues that are unrelated in order to blame someone else just isn't fair.

It isn't fair to those who are accused who did not say it, it isn't fair to those who are just joining who skim over the initial post and then read the replies and are inflamed by them and post thinking that's what the issue is, and it especially isn't fair to those mothers who DID have problems bonding with their babies and who might be interested in finding out if there may have been a correlation. It's not fair for these moms to feel like someone is labeling them as a "good" or "bad" mom because of their birth experience.

So if we can focus on birth bonding immediately after birth and refrain from saying "good" or "bad mom," that would be awesome!







We are ALL mamas here and we ALL love our babies. (And bonding stories about adoption are related, too, so DO share your experience if you immediately bonded with your adopted child)









And you should add that the mere title of this thread isn't fair and is actually quite insulting to mothers who had a non-natural birth and no issues immediatly following it.

Lets look at the title:

Non-natural birth = difficulty being a mother.

A more apt title would perhaps be "Is there a higher rate of mothering difficulties immediately following non-natural birth?" This would not in any why imply, like the one now does, that a mother who had a non-natural birth is also a mother who had difficulties right after birth.


----------



## amberskyfire (Sep 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *felix23* 
And you should add that the mere title of this thread isn't fair and is actually quite insulting to mothers who had a non-natural birth and no issues immediatly following it.

Lets look at the title:

Non-natural birth = difficulty being a mother.

A more apt title would perhaps be "Is there a higher rate of mothering difficulties immediately following non-natural birth?" This would not in any why imply, like the one now does, that a mother who had a non-natural birth is also a mother who had difficulties right after birth.


I can see what you mean there. I was trying to make it as short as possible for brevity's sake. Do you have something a bit shorter that would convey the message?

How about "Can non-natural birth lead to difficulties in mothering?" or maybe "Can non-natural birth lead to bonding problems?"

I like the second one. Is that better do you think?


----------



## crunchy_mommy (Mar 29, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amberskyfire* 
I can see what you mean there. I was trying to make it as short as possible for brevity's sake. Do you have something a bit shorter that would convey the message?

How about "Can non-natural birth lead to difficulties in mothering?" or maybe "Can non-natural birth lead to bonding problems?"

I like the second one. Is that better do you think?

How about just "Non-natural birth & immediate bonding" -- keep it neutral. I do agree that the title of your post is very hurtful, although I understand what you're trying to get at. Also, you are saying "lead to difficulties in mothering" or "lead to bonding problems" but you are also saying that you're talking about the immediate bond & it's relation to oxytocin & prolactin. I think you need to separate the time-frames here. I haven't done any research on it & the experiences of others as well as myself seems to contradict the basic theory -- i.e. I had a non-natural (medicated, pitocin, vaccum, vaginal) birth and did not experience any immediate bonding issues (although like many of the others, the trauma etc. of my birth experience did make me feel like a failure in some ways). However, I wouldn't doubt that the increase in the release of prolactin & oxytocin COULD (at least theoretically) make immediate bonding easier and more, well, IMMEDIATE maybe? Where I think that you're getting way off base is in suggesting that this could lead to "difficulties mothering." Maybe it could lead to a difficult first few days but I don't think it would lead to any long-term difficulties, and I definitely don't think it would make a mother less bonded after the initial week or so, nor would it make them more likely to CIO, not BF, etc. As I said before, I think there is a high rate of natural birth with AP moms and a higher rate of medicated & c/s birth with non-AP mainstream moms, so maybe some of what your suspecting could be attributed to that. I would also wonder whether prolactin & oxytocin have a cumulative effect... I'm going out on a limb here, so bear with me... Say you 'need' 5 units of prolactin & oxytocin to help with immediate bonding. Perhaps if you have a natural birth, your body is immediately flooded with the necessary 5 units... if you're BF'ing, maybe it's released at a rate of .5 units per a feeding... so it might take a day or so to reach 5 units. And if you aren't BF'ing, maybe it's released at a rate of 1 unit per day... then would take 5 days to reach 5 units. Like I said, I'm just speculating, but maybe this will give you some more direction with your research. But I will say again, I do not feel that this would necessarily lead to long-term bonding or mothering issues. I really feel that this would only be applicable during the very first days after birth.


----------



## loveneverfails (Feb 20, 2009)

I think if you're looking at hormones alone, you also need to take into account that different people produce hormones at different levels, metabolize them at different rates, and have different levels of sensitivity to hormones. I think it's far too complicated a question, because we don't have a way of knowing anyone's set point oxytocin-wise and there are too many factors involved. I think there's way way way too much going on to make a predictor of bonding and *especially* long term parenting out of oxytocin exposure. I mean if this stuff is true, does that mean that if I am walking around dilated at 6cm for a week without labor that I should stand on my head to prolong labor when it comes so that I have greater oxytocin exposure and therefore will bond more easily? At some point it starts to get absurd.

Not for anything but someone could naturally have very high levels of hormones because that's how her body works and she goes through an empowering c-section feeling wonderful and being a big ball of breastmilky goo starry-eyed in love with her baby. Someone else could have a completely natural birth, look at her baby afterwards and think "ok, who are you and what am I supposed to do with you?" The if oxytocin => then easy bonding and good parenting theory just doesn't work for me.

I think the natural versus "unnatural" is not the best place to look. I think fear and trauma are going to be more potent, and isn't adrenaline an inhibitor for producing oxytocin? If you have a calm and confident mother going into birth, I'd expect that to be more influential than whether she was a calm and confident elective c-section mom or calm and confident natural/home/unassisted birther. And fear is going to have psychological effects regarding confidence, regardless of whether there are any hormonal issues involved.

And I had immediate bonding with my adopted sister who is 15 years younger than me, and who was 3 years old and spoke a different language exclusively. We've been extremely close from the first time we met.


----------



## felix23 (Nov 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *crunchy_mommy* 
How about just "Non-natural birth & immediate bonding" -- keep it neutral. I do agree that the title of your post is very hurtful, although I understand what you're trying to get at. Also, you are saying "lead to difficulties in mothering" or "lead to bonding problems" but you are also saying that you're talking about the immediate bond & it's relation to oxytocin & prolactin. I think you need to separate the time-frames here. I haven't done any research on it & the experiences of others as well as myself seems to contradict the basic theory -- i.e. I had a non-natural (medicated, pitocin, vaccum, vaginal) birth and did not experience any immediate bonding issues (although like many of the others, the trauma etc. of my birth experience did make me feel like a failure in some ways). However, I wouldn't doubt that the increase in the release of prolactin & oxytocin COULD (at least theoretically) make immediate bonding easier and more, well, IMMEDIATE maybe? Where I think that you're getting way off base is in suggesting that this could lead to "difficulties mothering." Maybe it could lead to a difficult first few days but I don't think it would lead to any long-term difficulties, and I definitely don't think it would make a mother less bonded after the initial week or so, nor would it make them more likely to CIO, not BF, etc. As I said before, I think there is a high rate of natural birth with AP moms and a higher rate of medicated & c/s birth with non-AP mainstream moms, so maybe some of what your suspecting could be attributed to that. I would also wonder whether prolactin & oxytocin have a cumulative effect... I'm going out on a limb here, so bear with me... Say you 'need' 5 units of prolactin & oxytocin to help with immediate bonding. Perhaps if you have a natural birth, your body is immediately flooded with the necessary 5 units... if you're BF'ing, maybe it's released at a rate of .5 units per a feeding... so it might take a day or so to reach 5 units. And if you aren't BF'ing, maybe it's released at a rate of 1 unit per day... then would take 5 days to reach 5 units. Like I said, I'm just speculating, but maybe this will give you some more direction with your research. But I will say again, I do not feel that this would necessarily lead to long-term bonding or mothering issues. I really feel that this would only be applicable during the very first days after birth.

ITA. I think keeping it neutral and not going into your research trying to prove that non-natural births cause difficulties is the best way. Maybe just take out the whole non-natural birth factor and focus on finding what causes problems with immediate birth bonding. I think you will find that there are a lot of factors and it isn't just a natural v non-natural birth issue.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loveneverfails* 
I think if you're looking at hormones alone, you also need to take into account that different people produce hormones at different levels, metabolize them at different rates, and have different levels of sensitivity to hormones. I think it's far too complicated a question, because we don't have a way of knowing anyone's set point oxytocin-wise and there are too many factors involved. I think there's way way way too much going on to make a predictor of bonding and *especially* long term parenting out of oxytocin exposure. I mean if this stuff is true, does that mean that if I am walking around dilated at 6cm for a week without labor that I should stand on my head to prolong labor when it comes so that I have greater oxytocin exposure and therefore will bond more easily? At some point it starts to get absurd.

Not for anything but someone could naturally have very high levels of hormones because that's how her body works and she goes through an empowering c-section feeling wonderful and being a big ball of breastmilky goo starry-eyed in love with her baby. Someone else could have a completely natural birth, look at her baby afterwards and think "ok, who are you and what am I supposed to do with you?" The if oxytocin => then easy bonding and good parenting theory just doesn't work for me.

I think the natural versus "unnatural" is not the best place to look. I think fear and trauma are going to be more potent, and isn't adrenaline an inhibitor for producing oxytocin? If you have a calm and confident mother going into birth, I'd expect that to be more influential than whether she was a calm and confident elective c-section mom or calm and confident natural/home/unassisted birther. And fear is going to have psychological effects regarding confidence, regardless of whether there are any hormonal issues involved.

And I had immediate bonding with my adopted sister who is 15 years younger than me, and who was 3 years old and spoke a different language exclusively. We've been extremely close from the first time we met.









:


----------



## smeisnotapirate (Aug 24, 2007)

OP, just to play Devil's Advocate here, if you're truly trying to help your clients by conducting an anecdotal study on this idea, remember that science sets out to prove its theories INCORRECT, not correct. You then modify your theory until you can no longer prove it incorrect. Maybe you're going about it the wrong way? Just a suggestion to keep in mind.


----------



## mistymama (Oct 12, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *texmati* 

I hate to break it to you, but your child's birthday is just one day. You don't need to have a great birth experience to be a good mom. You can have a crappy birth and be a spectacular mom. I am.

So true. I"m pregnant and planning a VBAC - I know natural birth will be healthier for me, and for my baby. I have an awful birth experience with ds that ended in a c-section and me not being able to see him for 8 hours.









BUT BUT BUT - It did not hurt our bonding. As soon as I could get my sore butt to see him, I did. I loved and held him and kept him by my side from that moment on. He was premature and we struggled to breastfeed, but we made it happen. I never let him cry, was (and still am!) an attached, loving and attentive Mama.

I have no doubt a natural birth experience would make things easier for me this time around and I'm doing everything in my power to make that happen. But trust me, you can have the worst birth imaginable and still be a wonderful, attached Mom.


----------



## gcgirl (Apr 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *smeisnotapirate* 
OP, just to play Devil's Advocate here, if you're truly trying to help your clients by conducting an anecdotal study on this idea, remember that science sets out to prove its theories INCORRECT, not correct. You then modify your theory until you can no longer prove it incorrect. Maybe you're going about it the wrong way? Just a suggestion to keep in mind.

VERY good point. I was thinking the same thing.

Also, OP, please be careful when advising your clients. I have a friend who believes breastfeeding will prevent ALL post-partum depression: not true. I have ANOTHER friend who had NO bfing issues at all (and a natural birth and a good bonding experience) and had extreme PPD. So all the research in the world can't prevent things from happening. Just a caveat.


----------



## kitkatkaddoodle (Apr 24, 2008)

Maybe you discussed it, but what about those moms who ended up having medicated or surgical deliveries after a long, NON-medicated labor? They would had lots of exposure to the natural hormone surge, but does the laboring to pushing without intervention get negated by the emergency c/s for fetal distress or failure to desend after pushing for hours? How about precipitous deliveries, as noted above? If a woman has only an hour or two of laboring and scant seconds of pushing, is she not going to bond as well as a woman who had been in labor for two days or more?

I think your initial scope is too broad to make any kind of reasonable study since there are so many variables to consider.


----------



## channelofpeace (Jul 14, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mistymama* 
*I have no doubt a natural birth experience would make things easier for me this time around and I'm doing everything in my power to make that happen.* But trust me, you can have the worst birth imaginable and still be a wonderful, attached Mom.










I think that this the the key. Yes, a natural birth (generally!) makes bonding _easier_- you have the good hormones, the baby and mom are not separated. But we are rational beings, not solely relying on our hormones- it certainly helps but it is not the end all be all of bonding.


----------



## Drummer's Wife (Jun 5, 2005)

Good point, kitKat - two of my c-sections were after 39 and 36 hours of labor... Though, 2 were after no labor at all and I felt just as bonded, and all that other good stuff. Maybe it's just how I'm wired, b/c I am a baby person? I could fall in love with a newborn I see at the store.

I think the study doesn't exist, b/c it really doesn't play as big of a role as some people might choose to believe. I can understand it being important for someone who wants to be a midwife (knowing what can help the bonding and avoiding of PPD and such), but it can also do women a disservice if one puts so much importance in the all-mighty natural flowery birth. Just having those preconceived ideas sending energy out to the mom could be detrimental, IMO.


----------



## anj_rn (Oct 1, 2009)

The problem with the study as you have outlined it is that the study is correlational, and does not take into account the Mother herself. I would say that a mother who was not educated in bonding, BFing, etc, is more likely to go to the hospital, get the epidural, send the baby to the nursery to sleep, and feed formula. All these together would obviously affect bonding, not just the epidural.

You have to look at the whole picture. You also can't go into research trying to prove a point. You can try to discover causes, and then disprove theories, but not I have this idea and now I want to prove it.

BTW - I had 2 c/s, no PPD, and no bonding issues.


----------



## amberskyfire (Sep 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *crunchy_mommy* 
How about just "Non-natural birth & immediate bonding" -- keep it neutral.

I like yours better and it's much shorter. I'm going to use that one. Thank you!


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amberskyfire* 
The post is in reference to new mothers who have difficulty bonding with their babies, not ALL mothers. The discussion is not suggesting that all mothers have problems bonding with their babies. As I stated, it is not saying that if mothers do not birth naturally, they will have problems. It is asking the question if there is a correlation between non-natural births and women who DO have problems. If a woman has problems bonding, can it be related to their birth? That is what I am asking.

You specifically said:

Quote:

I have long suspected that many of the current mainstream practices of birth in hospitals may be what is leading *so many women* toward being *unable or unwilling to care for their babies properly* after birth.
And then your next two paragraphs begin:

Quote:

Non-natural birth & immediate bonding
(Title change by request)

I am sure that most people in this community suspect this, but I was wondering if anyone knows of or can direct me toward actual studies which might deal with this issue.

I have long suspected that many of the current mainstream practices of birth in hospitals may be what is leading so many women toward being unable or unwilling to care for their babies properly after birth.

We all know that during natural birth, the mother releases oxytocin as well as other hormones which initiate the very short period of time in which mother and baby attach. These hormones cause the mother to become fiercely protective of her baby and they promote not only bonding, but a strong desire in the mother to keep her baby close and to nourish and protect it.

But most women in hospitals today give birth under some kind of anesthesia

Quote:

I have strong suspicions that these actions may be creating a lack of ability to mother in these new mothers.
There is NOTHING between those quotes that indicate you are only talking about new mothers who have difficulty bonding to their babies. Nothing. The argument you've crafted to this point of the post clearly indicates that oyu are arguing that labor anesthesia takes away the ability to mother.

And then you continue with the fact that "everyone" you know felt this way and everyone you know told you you would too. So now, you have built the argument that this experience is nearly universal.

You seem unwilling to accept that the process is complex and multifaceted, and instead keep looking for one article, one cause, one point. When over and over you are being told it isn't so simple.

Human beings are not computers and our hormones are not computer programs that make us perform in precise, scripted ways.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AllyRae* 

Seriously, moms who aren't able to give birth with "the perfect birth" really don't need to hear that because of that, they are statistically supposed to be crappy moms. I know several moms who have had homebirths that do CIO and don't breastfeed past a couple months old and swat their infant's hands. And a lot of moms who have non-natural births who are fantastic AP parents.

Not even the mother's OWN idea of "the perfect birth", someone else's idea of "the perfect birth"...


----------



## SneakyPie (Jan 13, 2002)

It's not just that one can have a difficult birth and still be v. attached. Your idea that some mothers can "overcome" that b/c they have access to sites like these is pretty far-fetched as well. My mother had all her babies in the 1960s in v. difficult circumstances; she was not allowed to breastfeed, and had little support in the form of groups or media to move her toward attachment parenting. My father was kept away from her during all 3 of her births, and men had even less support for attachment parenting in those days than women did.

And yet both parents were v. attached to us, and taught us the techniques we still use with our own children.

The logic mistake you're committing here is that if natural birth supports bonding then birth difficulties must therefore hinder bonding -- and that early bonding equals the ability to be an appropriately attached parent/child unit, that no other factors enter in.


----------



## bebebradford (Apr 4, 2008)

I think this thread has given GREAT insight on how it depends on the person.. not the birth route taken. There have been great examples in here of moms who have had problems bonding despite the fact they had natural births, and the complete opposite. I think more people WANT to prove that moms with natural births bond better while non natural birthing methods cause problems, but from personal experience and what I've seen in here it doesn't look like that's the case.


----------



## MittensKittens (Oct 26, 2008)

I read the first few pages, and then come back today to find lots more. I don't know if this has been mentioned, but I vaguely remember a study that showed a connection between war-torn nations and a tendency to separate mom and baby immediately after birth (taking them to hospital nurseries), as well as non-baby friendly birth practices. Does anyone else know what study I am talking about, and where it can be found? It was certainly fascinating, and touched on how less than ideal birth practices are presumed to affect bonding.


----------



## 4myfinn (Dec 29, 2009)

I did not have a natural birth (although I desperately wanted one) and also had no knowledge of AP until my son was about 7 weeks old. I also did not have any problem _at all_ bonding with my baby. From the moment I saw the doctor lift him up after catching him it was an instant love-athon that has not stopped. When he became jaundiced and had to be put under the lights at the hospital, I sobbed and sobbed because I couldn't be holding him constantly.

I had always assumed that DS would sleep in his crib in the nursery we so lovingly decorated. My DH even built his crib himself. However, when we came home from the hospital with DS and I put him in a cradle next to our bed to sleep, it felt wrong, physically. It's hard to explain, but it just felt absolutely unnatural not to be close to him. For the first few nights I tried to let him sleep in the cradle but I couldn't sleep at all. Finally I just listened to my instincts and brought him into bed with us. We've never looked back.

I don't believe having an epidural during delivery affected our bonding at all, but that may partly be due to the hospital staff's help. They gave him to me right away and the nurse helped me immediately take off my gown for skin to skin contact. They helped me breastfeed. He roomed in with me the whole time and was only taken away for baths and to be weighed, and even then DH went with him. If my epidural had any potential to affect bonding, it was probably countered by some of these other things.


----------



## calpurnia (Sep 26, 2004)

I skimmed some of the posts.

Have you read Birth in Four Cultures, by Brigitte Jordan & Robbie Floyd? Get the later edition, & she mentions in her foreword/afterword how surprised she was, revisiting the topic of birth in America some 10 years later, that women did not have better births when they had fewer interventions, _but when they felt prepared & that they had had the birth they wanted._

She also points out that, absolutely everywhere, childbirth is socially patterned - the birth is physiological but the organisation is always cultural. There is no _natural_ birth.


----------



## amberskyfire (Sep 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *calpurnia* 
I skimmed some of the posts.

Have you read Birth in Four Cultures, by Brigitte Jordan & Robbie Floyd? Get the later edition, & she mentions in her foreword/afterword how surprised she was, revisiting the topic of birth in America some 10 years later, that women did not have better births when they had fewer interventions, _but when they felt prepared & that they had had the birth they wanted._

She also points out that, absolutely everywhere, childbirth is socially patterned - the birth is physiological but the organisation is always cultural. There is no _natural_ birth.

I have not read it, but it sounds absolutely like what kind of info I'm interested in. Thanks for the help! I'll head to the library first and see if one in our state has it. If not, I can order it used on Amazon.com.

I think that that explanation makes a lot more sense than my theory, actually - that women had better births when they felt prepared and had the birth that they WANTED. I believe emotions are tied into it so much.


----------



## RedOakMomma (Sep 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *savithny* 

There is NOTHING between those quotes that indicate you are only talking about new mothers who have difficulty bonding to their babies. Nothing. The argument you've crafted to this point of the post clearly indicates that oyu are arguing that labor anesthesia takes away the ability to mother.

And then you continue with the fact that "everyone" you know felt this way and everyone you know told you you would too. So now, you have built the argument that this experience is nearly universal.

You seem unwilling to accept that the process is complex and multifaceted, and instead keep looking for one article, one cause, one point. When over and over you are being told it isn't so simple.

Human beings are not computers and our hormones are not computer programs that make us perform in precise, scripted ways.

savithny, thank you. I was thinking/feeling this, too. And yes, this thread seems like a highly unusual (not to mention inaccurate and biased) way to gather information to condense for clients...especially in the way of official advice. And how are these responses being used? Will they be quoted?


----------



## RedOakMomma (Sep 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amberskyfire* 
But most women in hospitals today give birth under some kind of anesthesia. Even the women who are lucky enough to have natural births have their babies taken from them immediately after and the mother is usually left waiting as she listens to her baby screaming while the doctors and nurses run tests, measure, weight, poke, prod, and wash the baby before giving it back to the mother.

OP, this is from your first post and is one of the reasons I find this information gathering so strange. How many hospital births have you attended? Where do you get the stats for saying that the women "lucky enough to have natural births have their babies taken away from them immediately after, etc......"

This hasn't been the experience I've witnessed, in my own or others' births. It may be policy at some hospitals, but the experience you relate (and I'm wondering, perhaps exaggerate?) is hardly universal. Many hospitals put a huge emphasis on post-birth bonding...whether the mom has had an epi or not.

Perhaps, before you decide what kinds of awful things are happening in medicated births, or hospital births, you need to conduct a study (or find an actual one, not just an anecdotal one) about what is actually happening in hospitals after medicated and non-medicated births. You've had many, many women describe how your idea of what happens after a medicated or hospital birth is not accurate. Are you listening?


----------



## bebebradford (Apr 4, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RedOakMomma* 
savithny, thank you. I was thinking/feeling this, too. And yes, this thread seems like a highly unusual (not to mention inaccurate and biased) way to gather information to condense for clients...especially in the way of official advice. And how are these responses being used? Will they be quoted?

OH honey don't worry, she won't use any response that doesn't support her theory. Haven't you already figured that out?


----------



## CherryBomb (Feb 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RedOakMomma* 
OP, this is from your first post and is one of the reasons I find this information gathering so strange. How many hospital births have you attended? Where do you get the stats for saying that the women "lucky enough to have natural births have their babies taken away from them immediately after, etc......"

This hasn't been the experience I've witnessed, in my own or others' births. It may be policy at some hospitals, but the experience you relate (and I'm wondering, perhaps exaggerate?) is hardly universal. Many hospitals put a huge emphasis on post-birth bonding...whether the mom has had an epi or not.

Perhaps, before you decide what kinds of awful things are happening in medicated births, or hospital births, you need to conduct a study (or find an actual one, not just an anecdotal one) about what is actually happening in hospitals after medicated and non-medicated births. You've had many, many women describe how your idea of what happens after a medicated or hospital birth is not accurate. Are you listening?









My hospital vba2c was great. She placed on my chest immediately, they cleaned her off some on my chest and then I held her for over an hour (and she nursed for 45 minutes of that) before *I* told the nurse to go ahead and take her for the weighing, etc (they did it right next to my bed while I ate a turkey sandwich, I was starving!) They actually didn't even have a nursery for awhile because they really wanted moms to room in, but they found that that wasn't meeting the needs of the moms (especially c/s moms who were coming out of anesthesia) and so they brought it back, but really urged you to keep your baby with you as much as possible. No one ever tried to "take her away" from me. Everything was always done in my room with me right there. I had a birth plan, too, and all the nurses took the time to read it when they came in and did their best to honor our wishes. Everyone was really great and supportive.


----------



## betsyj (Jan 8, 2009)

Quote:

My hospital vba2c was great. She placed on my chest immediately, they cleaned her off some on my chest and then I held her for over an hour (and she nursed for 45 minutes of that) before I told the nurse to go ahead and take her for the weighing, etc (they did it right next to my bed while I ate a turkey sandwich, I was starving!) They actually didn't even have a nursery for awhile because they really wanted moms to room in, but they found that that wasn't meeting the needs of the moms (especially c/s moms who were coming out of anesthesia) and so they brought it back, but really urged you to keep your baby with you as much as possible. No one ever tried to "take her away" from me. Everything was always done in my room with me right there. I had a birth plan, too, and all the nurses took the time to read it when they came in and did their best to honor our wishes. Everyone was really great and supportive.
As was mine. As soon as my son was born he was placed right on my chest to nurse with the cord still attached. My husband cut the cord when HE was ready. When I birthed the placenta my doctor said, "and here is the most amazing thing," while taking the time to show me what had nourished my baby.

They weighed him right next to me, wrapped him up and gave him right back. He roomed in with me. There were several breastfeeding classes conducted every day by a lactation consultant. I found the whole experience to be wonderful. Nothing got in the way of our bonding.


----------



## MegBoz (Jul 8, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RedOakMomma* 

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amberskyfire*
But most women in hospitals today give birth under some kind of anesthesia. Even the women who are lucky enough to have natural births have their babies taken from them immediately after

OP, this is from your first post and is one of the reasons I find this information gathering so strange. How many hospital births have you attended? Where do you get the stats for saying that the women "lucky enough to have natural births have their babies taken away from them immediately after, etc......"
<snip>
Perhaps, before you decide what kinds of awful things are happening in medicated births, or hospital births, you need to conduct a study (or find an actual one, not just an anecdotal one) about what is actually happening in hospitals after medicated and non-medicated births. You've had many, many women describe how your idea of what happens after a medicated or hospital birth is not accurate. Are you listening?

Whoa, ok, first of all, even if the OP were "listening" to those of us on this site, we are not representative of mainstream America! So even if 90% of MDC Mamas have had a certain experience, that hardly means it's likely that 90% of _all American women_ have had that experience! (Sorry, I'm only familiar with birthing in the US.)

Second of all, that IS a fact that the majority of births in the US are medicated!!! Are you honestly questioning that? That seems to me an odd point to question the validity of.

Thirdly, the fact that birthing women are treated poorly in American hospitals is also well documented. I recommend the books, "Pushed" by Jennifer Block as well as "Born in the USA" by Dr. Marsden Wagner.

Now, as to the issue of whether or not a difficult/abusive/or simply medicated birth experience leads to difficulty mothering, well, that is another issue.

But I didn't think it was up for debate that:
1. birthing women are frequently mistreated in American hospitals
2. Most women have epidurals (like, well, WELL over 50%)


----------



## RedOakMomma (Sep 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MegBoz* 
Second of all, that IS a fact that the majority of births in the US are medicated!!! Are you honestly questioning that? That seems to me an odd point to question the validity of.

Nowhere in my post did I question that. I'm fully aware of the stats on epis and medicated labors. What I question is the assertion that "*Even the women who are lucky enough to have natural births have their babies taken from them immediately after* and the mother is usually left waiting as she listens to her baby screaming while the doctors and nurses run tests, measure, weight, poke, prod, and wash the baby before giving it back to the mother."

This seems like an exaggeration, or at least an assertion based on a limited or biased viewpoint...not one based on statistics or surveys of actual birth experiences. It's a strange, absolute statement to make.


----------



## RedOakMomma (Sep 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bebebradford* 
OH honey don't worry, she won't use any response that doesn't support her theory. Haven't you already figured that out?









I did, which is why I removed my personal experiences from this thread. I don't want to support this effort at gathering information for clients.


----------



## kitkatkaddoodle (Apr 24, 2008)

I agree that most births in the US are medicated in one way or another, but I'd like to see some sort of proof that we've had a decrease in the amount of immediate bonding within the time where medication/anesthesia during labor has been popular. In order to do that, of course, we'd need at minimum to have some kind of criteria hammered out for how we're measuring "immediate bonding" and a control group who have not had medication but is similar in makeup to the group who did, with similar labor and birth trauma patterns, etc.


----------



## matthia (Nov 26, 2009)

I think I would be VERY hesitant to try and correlate birth trauma or even a great medicated birth with a lack of maternal bonding.

I think the trend in the last...oh 50 or 100 years in society at large has been a move from informed consent, intellectual consideration, hard work, and necessary inconvenience towards a less informed, less intelligent, towards a populace at large that is less willing to put in hard work for results or put up with necessary inconveniences if there is any way around them. From the food we eat (from fast foods that are slowly killing us to eating any vegetable or fruit we want no matter where it;s grown or what it's growing season is) to the clothes we wear to the lifestyles we adapt, society is tending towards a seperation from intuition and tradition and what little instincts humans still possess. Fad anything is swallowed by the masses with very little regard for truth or reason. From fad diets to fad parenting, many people are looking for the easiest possible way to accomplish a certain goal.

Someone who is willing to question advertisements and fad lifestyles and all that is LIKELY to also question fad parenting tips. That being said, I don't agree that someone who doesn't AP is a "bad" parent, just as I don't think a baby who is fussy is a "bad" baby. People who have no access to this information or who don't agree with it can still be amazing people and amazing parents. I also very much DON'T think its a good idea to assume SO MUCH importance to such a small moment in both yourself and your baby's life. As important as I think immediate mother/infant contact is, and as much I could wish is on everyone in an ideal world, I DO NOT think that you can't recover that time later.

People who are less inclined to want to think for themselves, who often or always allow themselves to be swayed by what others say, regardless of how they feel, IN ALL ASPECTS OF THEIR LIFE, are PROBABLY more likely to be unattached or have a harder time bonding with an infant, if only because infants are SO instict driven that it can be scary to someone who has ignored that part of themselves their whole life.

I DO NOT think this trend is caused by or a result of medicalized/emergency births, nor even of outdated hospital procedures.


----------



## Encinalien (Mar 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amberskyfire* 
<snip>
This is, in essence, taking the responsibility of the baby away from the mother right at the critical moments in which she should be forming an attachment to her baby. Instead, she is forming an attachment to not holding her baby and hearing the sound of her child's cries.

<snip>

Everyone I know was terrified after the birth of their baby and even with their second and third babies, they told me it was like the first time and they didn't know what to do. All of them had problems bonding.*

Everyone told me that I would also be a scared first-time-mom, but it wasn't that way for me at all. I had a home birth and was absolutely intent on my baby.


Yes I can see why you wrote the first snippet because natural birth gives the woman back the power of producing her own delivery. *It's the big selling point.

And I can see why you would want to address the problems mentioned in the second snippet. *I know many girls in the south who might have said the same exact thing as your friends said, however:
**

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CherryBomb* 
I think when women spend their whole pregnancies hearing that they MUST give birth a certain way to be a "real" mother and a "real" woman, THAT'S what causes problems. *I never felt bad about my first c/s until other people told me I should. *I take responsibility for allowing people to influence me like that, but it's hard to ignore that when you're young (I was only 18 when I had dd1) and trying to figure out how to parent and where you fit in.


I think it's great you're studying midwifery in an area of the country where it sounds like it's lacking. *Just be careful to stay with the principals of natural birth and natural medicine in general which empowers the patient and fosters the belief that our bodies are capable, we are capable. *Lecturing someone with a medical problem doesn't really make them feel more capable, less scared, or more able to bond. *

To help with the emergency-transferred clients you could take some extra courses on lactation consulting, maybe work with a local herbalists to learn more about PPD and birth trauma healings.

Again it's a noble cause you're persuing. *Helping people is always worth studying ever more in depth. *There are no stupid quiestions. *Just keep searching for the truth.


----------



## kitkatkaddoodle (Apr 24, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *matthia* 
I think the trend in the last...oh 50 or 100 years in society at large has been a move from informed consent, intellectual consideration, hard work, and necessary inconvenience towards a less informed, less intelligent, towards a populace at large that is less willing to put in hard work for results or put up with necessary inconveniences if there is any way around them. From the food we eat (from fast foods that are slowly killing us to eating any vegetable or fruit we want no matter where it;s grown or what it's growing season is) to the clothes we wear to the lifestyles we adapt, society is tending towards a seperation from intuition and tradition and what little instincts humans still possess. Fad anything is swallowed by the masses with very little regard for truth or reason. From fad diets to fad parenting, many people are looking for the easiest possible way to accomplish a certain goal.

Really? I see us as heading toward MORE choices, informed consent, and intellectual consideration, not less. After all, 50 to 100 years ago, how many choices did society as a whole have regarding their food, clothing, medical care, etc? How would they have known better without being able to share and compare with others as we can now?

Today, with our ability to find resources and information about things outside our immediate community or social circle, I think we are far better equipped to and willing to question and chose intelligently amongst these things.


----------



## MegBoz (Jul 8, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RedOakMomma* 
Nowhere in my post did I question that. I'm fully aware of the stats on epis and medicated labors.

Ah, gotcha, my bad. Based on what you quoted & your response, I thought you were questioning more of the content of her post than just the assertion that babies are removed from their mothers.


----------



## 4myfinn (Dec 29, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CherryBomb* 







My hospital vba2c was great. She placed on my chest immediately, they cleaned her off some on my chest and then I held her for over an hour (and she nursed for 45 minutes of that) before *I* told the nurse to go ahead and take her for the weighing, etc (they did it right next to my bed while I ate a turkey sandwich, I was starving!) They actually didn't even have a nursery for awhile because they really wanted moms to room in, but they found that that wasn't meeting the needs of the moms (especially c/s moms who were coming out of anesthesia) and so they brought it back, but really urged you to keep your baby with you as much as possible. No one ever tried to "take her away" from me. Everything was always done in my room with me right there. I had a birth plan, too, and all the nurses took the time to read it when they came in and did their best to honor our wishes. Everyone was really great and supportive.

The hospital where I delivered also had no nursery. The nurses offered to take DS to the nurses' station for a few hours so I could sleep (and I usually refused), but that was it. It was totally up to me.

The entire staff read my birth plan, too. They never pushed me to get an epidural. They never even mentioned it, because it was in my birth plan.


----------



## SashaBear (Aug 24, 2006)

I havent read the whole thread, but I need to comment.

My situation was weird. With my son, my pregnancy and labor were hard, long, and uncomfortable. My bladder was injured. We had problems breastfeeding. He had jaundice and had to have is blood checked every day. He was an awful baby too. Never slept, didn't nap well. I was a walking zombie. I would definitely say that we had bonding problems.
With my daughter, my 12 hour labor ended in a csection. She almost died; her Apgars were 1 and 2. She was sent to the NICU and hour away and I didn't hold her until she was almost 48 hours old. I stayed in the hospital with her I lived on a 3 hour schedule because thats how often she nursed. We bonded so well. Words cannot explain how I feel about my daughter. I missed her during her nap time. She was a good sleeper too. She co-slept with us most of the night.

I think so much more goes into the bonding than we think.


----------



## Kama82 (Mar 12, 2006)

Could it possibly be one of the many factors influencing bonding? Sure, so can a million other things. What about a mom who births at home in a very natural setting but suddenly comes down with a bad case of the flu right after or during the birth, that would probably influence the bonding process too, right?

I was induced with Cytotec,had an epidural, given stadol (I think some kind of pain killer that made me loopy), had a c-section, did not even get to touch my baby for hours after the birth, did not get to breastfeed for over 24 hours.

I also had not prior done any research on natural birth, parenting, I didn't even know what attachment parenting was. In fact I read someones UC birth story a few days before my daughter was born and I was mystified that someone would *choose* to not go to a hospital to give birth.

I felt bonded with my child the minute she was born, before she was born I felt bonded with her. I am a great mother I love her fiercely.My birth experience and my lack of prior knowledge in no way made me a less "loving" or "natural" parent. She breastfed for 3 1/2 years and self weaned. She co slept and still comes into our bed every night.

Do I think my birth experience made all this *physically* harder? Yes it did no doubt about that. Have I had some emotional difficulty with the c-section? Sure, I had some issues to work through about it. Did it make it harder to love my child? Harder to be a mother? No way.

Natural childbirth does not give you good mom or love your baby points that no one else can ever get. The reasons that people make the parenting choices that they do exist independently of birth.

That study you linked is a little deceptive. Sure 17% of the mothers in the c-section group had a self esteem loss. Why? Because of the epidural? Or because so many people believe that if you have had a c-section you have not given birth, or that you will be a lesser mother, or not have as good of a bond with your baby. The people who go into birth with those beliefs and end up with a c-section anyway have it the worst because they come out of the experience feeling like failures, and that they have lost something they can never ever regain. Having that reaffirmed by the beliefs of others does nothing to help their self esteem.
Birth is _one_ day, not even a day, a moment. Guess what? Even babies who come out through surgical incisions are born. The mothers who gestated them are the ones birthing them. They may not be pushing the baby out but their body is being ravaged in order to give life to their child. Taking that away from them by minimizing c-section birth is so unfair.

Moms with "unnatural births" should not get lumped into "at risk to be a bad mother" by default. We should not have to prove that we have pulled away from the "norm" and are good mothers, we should get the same courtesy extended to any other mother and have it be *assumed* that we will be good mothers.


----------



## KaylaBeanie (Jan 27, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loveneverfails* 
I'm going to agree wholeheartedly with *CherryBomb*. I think the issue isn't any certain kind of birth, although obviously *trauma* is going to create a factor that can impact bonding for better or for worse, sometimes both. Natural does not mean untraumatic. Medicalized does not mean traumatic.

This. My mom had two unnatural births, and is one of the most attached mothers I've ever met in my entire life. My sister and I co-slept past toddlerhood, we were never left to CIO, etc. Her sister had totally unmedicated births and left her three oldest children to be raised by their father, so there obviously wasn't some sort of awesome AP-style bonding going on. My SIL had two totally unmedicated, natural births and she is a proponent of early weaning, CIO and doesn't co-sleep.

As it is, I don't worry about what type of birth I'll have. I will home birth unless I transfer or get risked out. If I require a medically necessary c-section or induction, I will be nothing but grateful for those medical interventions, because I absolutely think they have their place. Knowing my personality and myself, I can't imagine that I'll be disappointed or a bad mother over it. To me, AP isn't an all-or-nothing. If I had to have a c-section, it wouldn't stop me from nursing/cloth diapering/co-sleeping/baby-wearing/etc. I think it would be silly to say that method of birth doesn't play into bonding at all, but I also think that is largely because so many women feel totally out of control when they experience the cascade of interventions. There are obviously women here who have had inductions, epidurals and c-sections. I would venture to guess that the reason so many are just fine with their outcome is BECAUSE they were informed, and felt in control.


----------

