# Vaginal delivery does not equal Natural Childbirth



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

Quote:

Noun: natural childbirth 'nachurul 'chIld`burth
Labour and childbirth without medical intervention; no drugs are given to relieve pain or aid the birth process
I feel like this is an important subject to bring up. There seems to be an increasing number of people who equate a vaginal delivery with the use of drugs and various interventions with Natural Childbirth. This is simply not the case. I see this trend as a small tragedy for women and for birth. It shows to me that women are being influenced by the mainstream medical model to such an extreme they do not even know what Natural Family Living is any longer.


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

I agree.


----------



## MommaGreenBean (May 8, 2007)

Va-gi-nal Come, on, ya can say it, my wife had a vaginal childbirth! LOL. I usually get it from the dads...


----------



## Kappa (Oct 15, 2007)

I had a friend who was induced, but went without drugs for pain relief, and she considered her childbirth "natural." I figure, to each her own. I'm not a purist, but it is misleading or confusing when everyone makes up a definition for herself.


----------



## Sonnenwende (Sep 9, 2006)

I think it is just as natural for humans as a species to have intervention as to not have it. The vast majority of us do naturally seek out others to assist if needed in our births. That is our instinct and it makes sense seeing how often things can go wrong as they can go right.


----------



## Veritaserum (Apr 24, 2004)

Yeah, I agree. I think for some it's the inability to say "vaginal birth".







I've even known some people to say that ALL birth is natural, including c-sections. Uh, ok whatever.

Natural birth is what happens when you give birth by yourself. There are shades of gray, though. I mean, I consider my midwife-attended home births to be natural since no medications were used. I did have interventions of the monitoring variety, but I don't feel that those alter the course of labor and therefore am comfortable including them under the umbrella of natural childbirth.









I've hashed this out on other boards. Some moms get really distraught and feel like it's some kind of value judgment. For me it's just a definition. And there are circumstances that warrant intervention into the process. That doesn't mean it is a bad birth because it is "unnatural".

In general I'll use "natural childbirth" and "unmedicated childbirth" to describe a vaginal birth without medications. "Unmedicated" can also refer to a birth without pain meds even if other meds were used (like pitocin).


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

I don't refer to my unmedicated birth as "natural" even because she was born in a hospital, which was a wildly unnatural setting. I had no interventions, no medications. But I did have vaginal checks and it was a fairly cold sterile environment, and I was instructed to be on my back for the final pushing stages.

So even though, many, including my labor doula call that a natural childbirth, I call it an unmedicated or intervention free birth. BUT I don't get offended or correct people who will call it a Natural Childbirth. I do however get very sad to hear women who have inductions, epidurals, their water broken by the OB and other interventions call their birth "natural".


----------



## gethane (Dec 30, 2003)

I have no problem with this definition. I've had 3 c-sections and 2 vaginal births (vbac) that were in no way natural. I'm glad I had them (the vbacs). I'm don't feel like I'm less of a woman. But they were not "natural." They were highly managed.

It's a description, not a judgment.

In situations where I did not feel comfortable saying "vaginal" I've said, "ya know, regular." Cracks me up when I think about it now.


----------



## Artichokie (Jun 19, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kappa* 
I had a friend who was induced, but went without drugs for pain relief, and she considered her childbirth "natural." I figure, to each her own. I'm not a purist, but it is misleading or confusing when everyone makes up a definition for herself.

I face possible induction and if I must do so, will be going though labor and vaginal delivery without pain meds. Dang straight I'll call it natural childbirth. It is not a "made up definition."


----------



## Kappa (Oct 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MoreThanApplesauce* 
I face possible induction and if I must do so, will be going though labor and vaginal delivery without pain meds. Dang straight I'll call it natural childbirth. *It is not a "made up definition.*"

Sure it is. There a many quoted on this thread that say an intervention like induction does not equal natural. I'm saying, to each her own. Don't get defensive, you can call your labor whatever you want, but many people will be led to believe that you had no interventions if you call it "natural." All I'm saying is you are misleading (some) people, but it's your experience you can call it whatever you want. At the end of the day it's nobody's business, and lord help them if they care that much!


----------



## danotoyou2 (Jan 19, 2007)

I had an Unnatural cesarean, and then a semi-natural HBAC. Yes, it was an HBAC, which meant no drugs or interventions... but I did take castor oil, black and blue cohosh, etc. Those aren't exactly natural. I was trying to interfere with mother nature to speed things along.

But, when talking casually, I DO refer to that as a natural childbirth.

The first was no pain meds (until a general anesthetic for the surgery), but I labored with pitocin, magnesium sulfate and an IV. Hardly natural, but... no pain meds. Whatever that's worth.


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

congrats on your hbac! That's great.


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Quote:

it makes sense seeing how often things can go wrong as they can go right.
IMO, with biologically normal, unhindered birth that is not the case at all. When birth is institutionalized, yes, things do go wrong a lot, but _birth works_ when left alone.

I don't care for the term natural all that much. I believe that "natural" birth is more of a cultural construct. What's _natural_ for someone in culture might be very different in another. I usually say unmedicated or drug-free







But generally, I just say birth


----------



## oldermom (Jan 6, 2007)

I had both of my children in hospitals. I had my first without drugs and vaginally, and I generally call it "natural," even though being hooked up to a monitor and an IV doesn't seem all that natural. But I feel proud that I managed my labor pain (only because I begged, and I mean begged, to use the rocking chair for most of the labor - I had to do the transition labor on the bed on my side because my blood pressure was high), and it felt like I was really giving birth when I pushed my dd out.

This is in contrast to giving birth to my second child with the epidural. Yes, it was pain-free (numbness would be that), but it seemed wrong, weird, and surreal to be lying in bed, strapped to a bunch of things, watching Oprah and waiting until it was time to push - until they told me it was. And when I pushed, I felt nothing! (It was amazing I was able to push my ds out - I had no idea what I was doing.) So, that birth felt a lot less "natural."

Ironically, my older child, the one I delivered "naturally," didn't nurse, and my younger one did. That's because the second hospital was "family friendly," at least when it came to nursing and making sure it happened.

I'm envious of all you who did homebirths. If I were to have a 3rd, that's how I would do it. But, I'm too old and don't have the energy for a 3rd.







:

I'm not sure what my point is. I guess it's that, even in a hospital setting, the birth without drugs felt a lot more natural than the one with. I guess I'd argue for defining "natural" in degrees.

Oh, yeah - I feel I have to correct my dh when he calls my second birth "natural" when he should be saying "vaginal."

Oldermom


----------



## prothyraia (Feb 12, 2007)

I think natural birth is a great term to describe intervention-free birth.

I think "not natural" or "unnatural" is a very poor term to describe a birth with interventions. What exactly was it then, artificial? Was the baby made of plastic?









My birth with my son was rife with interventions, and I certainly wouldn't refer to it as a natural birth. I can easily call it medicalized, difficult, and not normal. But I *can't* call it 'unnatural'. Interventions and all, it was the most primal, earthy, womanly experience of my life, during which I followed my intuition and my heart. To say that it was 'not natural' just doesn't feel accurate.


----------



## MommaGreenBean (May 8, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Veritaserum* 
Yeah, I agree. I think for some it's the inability to say "vaginal birth".







I've even known some people to say that ALL birth is natural, including c-sections. Uh, ok whatever.

~~~

In general I'll use "natural childbirth" and "unmedicated childbirth" to describe a vaginal birth without medications. "Unmedicated" can also refer to a birth without pain meds even if other meds were used (like pitocin).

Honestly, it doesn't bug me (I'm a UCer). To a very loose extent, a baby coming out of a woman is natural, so I guess you could say that a section is natural









I don't think I've ever actually called mine natural... I just say 'no drugs' or 'hubby caught' if asked for specifics along those lines.

I used propane-heated hot water and electricity during my birth... so maybe it wasn't totally natural







Just messin around, but ya know, you can take it to any extreme.

Cara


----------



## anothermama (Nov 11, 2003)

I prefer the term "normal" birth.

From what I've seen these days, it's so normal to have highly medicalized births and c sections that most women just assume natural = vaginal. It's really a weird time we're living in.


----------



## green_momma2007 (Jul 22, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kappa* 
I had a friend who was induced, but went without drugs for pain relief, and she considered her childbirth "natural." I figure, to each her own. I'm not a purist, but it is misleading or confusing when everyone makes up a definition for herself.

I would definately consider that a natural birth. Not all mommas go into labor on their own, and if it means getting induced to avoid a c-section....well, the more power to her. Besides, induced labors tend to be much harder, so if she managed to go without drugs, who are we to take the "natural" badge away from her.


----------



## gethane (Dec 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *green_momma2007* 
who are we to take the "natural" badge away from her.


but that's the whole point, its NOT a badge, its a DEFINITION.

Sigh.

This is not a competition. There are no medals, or badges to be won. Everyone who takes a living baby home from the hospital is a winner.


----------



## njbeachgirl (Oct 8, 2006)

I've been asked "natural or c-section" many times.... especially by men.... i'm always like.... "VAGINAL"!!! because that's what they are asking. people hate to say the v-word


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MoreThanApplesauce* 
I face possible induction and if I must do so, will be going though labor and vaginal delivery without pain meds. Dang straight I'll call it natural childbirth. It is not a "made up definition."

I was induced with my second. I went through labor and vaginal delivery without pain medications. Yes, I consider it to be a natural childbirth. I had a natural childbirth with my first child, and the experience felt the same to me. I labored. I worked through contractions. I pushed my baby from my body. That is natural childbirth to me.

And, frankly, I don't care how anyone else defines my birth. I define my birth.


----------



## Artichokie (Jun 19, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *green_momma2007* 
I would definately consider that a natural birth. Not all mommas go into labor on their own, and if it means getting induced to avoid a c-section....well, the more power to her. Besides, induced labors tend to be much harder, so if she managed to go without drugs, who are we to take the "natural" badge away from her.

Thank you.


----------



## shelleyd (Jul 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *green_momma2007* 
I would definately consider that a natural birth. *Not all mommas go into labor on their own*, and if it means getting induced to avoid a c-section....well, the more power to her. Besides, induced labors tend to be much harder, so if she managed to go without drugs, who are we to take the "natural" badge away from her.


When don't women go into labor on their own? I think that we've lost sight of what the natural physiological process of labor and birth is in our country. The process is interfered with the majority of the time and we don't know what it even is to not have that messed with. We think that an artificially induced labor is natural.

I think that this is sort of the point of the whole discussion. An induced labor is not natural. I know that there are times when it is necessary. I think that women who go through an induced labor without pain meds deserve medals. That is very difficult and those moms should be applauded. I am not saying that induced moms don't work hard to push their babies out or get through their labors or anything like that.

But that doesn't make synthetic pitocin natural. Pitocin doesn't work the same way in our bodies as oxytocin does. It is not the same.

Shelley


----------



## frogautumn (May 24, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gethane* 

This is not a competition. There are no medals, or badges to be won. Everyone who takes a living baby home from the hospital is a winner.









: Well stated!


----------



## AlpineMama (Aug 16, 2007)

I'm not trying to be tongue in cheek here, just curious. For you purists, a natural birth is a birth when not medicated and there are no interventions, right? What about, say, directed pushing, or coaching, or something? (We're not talking about what is IDEAL but rather what is NATURAL...) I would argue that it's not necessarily natural because it's not having the woman use her own instincts.

It seems like it's a slippery slope to say what is and what isn't natural - heck, it seems a solitary, unattended birth seems most natural by definition, because that's the only one where a woman is going by her instincts alone, and yet in a way it's UN-natural too because to the best of my knowledge, most births within the context of human women have been attended by other women in their social group...

And then what about other ways of jump-starting labor, maybe not pitocin through an IV but how about herbal remedies, etc. Were those unnatural births as well?

Just thinking (typing) out loud.


----------



## gethane (Dec 30, 2003)

You make some interesting points and I do think it could indeed be a slippery slope. However, I do think its fair to say that not every vaginal birth is "natural" and I believe the OP is decrying this slide in mainstream usage, and even here on MDC, because its a result of such a high c-section rate, so anything else is "natural." I think its valuable to consider whether on a NATURAL family living site we should embrace this mainstream definition as "if it comes out the vagina its natural" as opposed to the more traditional definiton.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

In 1971, a television news show focused on an elective, scheduled caesarean section delivery. The surgery was called "natural childbirth" because the mother was awake and her pain was blocked by the used of acupuncture needles, not drugs.

Is this really natural childbirth? This attitude has been over 35 years in the making. It is nothing new at all.


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Could it be that cesareans have become so common that when a baby arrives via the vagina, many consider it to have been a "natural" birth, regardless if drugs were involved?


----------



## hubris (Mar 8, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *prothyraia* 
I think natural birth is a great term to describe intervention-free birth.

Of course, then you have to define what counts as an intervention. Many people believe that any hindrance to birth, including being in the (unnatural) hospital environment, being closely watched, not being in one's own normal home setting, is an intervention. Or things like coached pushing, pushing in the lithotomy position, etc.

I have had two births that I refer to as _unmedicated hospital births_. I think the word "natural" has a host of connotations that can be misleading or otherwise dilute what I mean to communicate when I describe those births. Just as "natural" can be used as a euphemism for "vaginal," I think it's also more accurate to say "unmedicated" if what I'm trying to communicate is that I didn't use pharmaceutical induction/augmentation or pain relief.

I would agree that how a woman defines her birth to herself is important...but when discussing birth with other people, it's important to choose language that best achieves whatever our goals are. In the case of vaginal=natural, I think the OP is objecting to the way that the cultural definition of "normal" gets shifted when language is used in that way. As somebody who cares about cultural attitudes about birth, I choose my words carefully when discussing birth with other people.


----------



## kittywitty (Jul 5, 2005)

Guess I haven't had one, then. With dd#1 I have proudly talked about my natural birth with her. I had half a dose of nubain early in labor and that's it. I have always been proud of this, as it was the least intervention-laden birth I have ever experienced or those of people I know IRL around my age (not talking about grandma!







).


----------



## DragonflyBlue (Oct 21, 2003)

I'm trying to figure out why it matters so much?

I've birthed 8 children. 6 singletons and a set of twins. Three homebirths, the rest in the hospital.

I've not had an epidural or any other pain relief medication. I've had one induction and one birth where labor was augmented with pitocin.

I call them all natural.

If one really wants to have a "natural" childbirth, shouldn't one then forgo the use of labor balls, birthing pools, backrubs, hypnobirthing or other techniques? Come on, where does one draw the line? And who says one persons line is any better than the others?

A PP was right, there is no badge, no award for having the tightest vagina. What matters is that a baby is born safely, that the woman is safe and feels empowered by her experience. It's not about one upmanship.

Why all the qualifiers as to what a natural birth is or isn't?


----------



## felix23 (Nov 7, 2006)

For some people I think it is natural to desire relief from the pain of giving birth. They might get that relief from a water birth, rocking on a birth ball, having a massage, hypnosis, or getting an epi. None of those things are naturally part of birth, but around here most people who do the first four say they have had a natural birth. I know a lot of people who have had the last and they still consider themselves to have had a natural birth. They still pushed a baby out of their vagina which is the natural way to birth, they just had some help from a modern invention to deal with the pain. IMO birthing with a vaginal delivery is natural, giving birth via a c-section is not.


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gethane* 
but that's the whole point, its NOT a badge, its a DEFINITION.

Sigh.

This is not a competition. There are no medals, or badges to be won. Everyone who takes a living baby home from the hospital is a winner.

yes this. I don't mean this thread to be a competition or to in anyway to state that one way is better than the other. This is about the definition of the term "Natural Childbirth"

Quote:


Originally Posted by *shelleyd* 
*When don't women go into labor on their own?* I think that we've lost sight of what the natural physiological process of labor and birth is in our country. The process is interfered with the majority of the time and we don't know what it even is to not have that messed with. We think that an artificially induced labor is natural.

I think that this is sort of the point of the whole discussion. An induced labor is not natural. I know that there are times when it is necessary. I think that women who go through an induced labor without pain meds deserve medals. That is very difficult and those moms should be applauded. I am not saying that induced moms don't work hard to push their babies out or get through their labors or anything like that.

But that doesn't make synthetic pitocin natural. Pitocin doesn't work the same way in our bodies as oxytocin does. It is not the same.

the bolded part is what strikes me most. ooops i guess i didn't quote the poster who said that some women don't go into labor on their own and need help. That kind of "knowledge" is what I'm talking about when I say I fear the mainstream medical model. There are thousands, probably millions of women out there who really believe that their bodies won't go into labor on their own, millions who believe that that they don't make enough milk to feed their baby. When women are fed these kinds of lies by the media, by the medical institutions they entrust to care for them are they even given a chance? Are they even capable of making choices that are for their own benefit or their babies benefit?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gethane* 
You make some interesting points and I do think it could indeed be a slippery slope. However, I do think its fair to say that not every vaginal birth is "natural" and I believe the OP is decrying this slide in mainstream usage, and even here on MDC, because its a result of such a high c-section rate, so anything else is "natural." I think its valuable to consider whether on a NATURAL family living site we should embrace this mainstream definition as "if it comes out the vagina its natural" as opposed to the more traditional definition.

Gethane you read my mind. i don't *really* care that much when a woman at church calls her medicated vaginal delivery a natural childbirth because she can't say vaginal. But I do care when I come to MDC and see the same definition. I want to be able to read posts on the Natural Family Living site and not have to ask "When you say natural, do you mean drug free? or do you mean vaginal with lots of interventions and medications?"

Quote:


Originally Posted by *georgia* 
Could it be that cesareans have become so common that when a baby arrives via the vagina, many consider it to have been a "natural" birth, regardless if drugs were involved?

Yes i think that this is it. Go back to when I was born in 1970, and no one would have even asked if a woman had a c/s, because the c/s rate was so low, it was assumed that babies were born vaginally. But today, in this country, we have to ask. In my mom group of 8 women, half of the women had c/s and half had vaginal deliveries.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DragonflyBlue* 
I'm trying to figure out why it matters so much?

I've birthed 8 children. 6 singletons and a set of twins. Three homebirths, the rest in the hospital.

I've not had an epidural or any other pain relief medication. I've had one induction and one birth where labor was augmented with pitocin.

I call them all natural.

If one really wants to have a "natural" childbirth, shouldn't one then forgo the use of labor balls, birthing pools, backrubs, hypnobirthing or other techniques? Come on, where does one draw the line? And who says one persons line is any better than the others?

A PP was right, there is no badge, no award for having the tightest vagina. What matters is that a baby is born safely, that the woman is safe and feels empowered by her experience. It's not about one upmanship.

Why all the qualifiers as to what a natural birth is or isn't?

It's just my frustration with the lack of definition. It's not at all about one upmanship, and I think that's where a lot of women go in their heads right away in these discussions. The "she's taking my badge away" type of comments. It's a definition. I don't make burgers for dinner using ground turkey and call them hamburgers I call them turkey burgers. and by calling them what they are, I'm not saying that someone else's cooking isn't as good as mine. It's just a definition.


----------



## hubris (Mar 8, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dnw826* 
Guess I haven't had one, then.

Very, very few women today have had a truly unhindered birth. I'm not sure I know any. It's not something to feel judged about, it's a matter of how our culture has changed the way of birth, and something to think about as we change that culture.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DragonflyBlue* 
I'm trying to figure out why it matters so much?

The way we use language has an effect on how we define our own experiences, what experiences we work toward, and how we affect other people's perceptions of the world and what they work toward. Language change is one important part of cultural change.


----------



## gethane (Dec 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hubris* 
The way we use language has an effect on how we define our own experiences, what experiences we work toward, and how we affect other people's perceptions of the world and what they work toward. Language change is one important part of cultural change.

Exactly! Just as the language of breastfeeding ("benefits" as opposed to the fact that breastfeeding is the human standard, and formula actually has detriments) is important, so is the language of birth. As I said, I've had 3 c-sections and 2 highly managed vbacs. And I am not offended nor do I feel like someone is taking away my "accomplishment" by the fact that none of my births were "natural." They weren't. It's a description of a fact. Not a judgment.


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hubris* 

The way we use language has an effect on how we define our own experiences, what experiences we work toward, and how we affect other people's perceptions of the world and what they work toward. Language change is one important part of cultural change.

ahhh so wise! You put into words why it frustrates me so much. The culture of birth is changing. womens choices are not being broadened they are being taken away.


----------



## majormajor (Nov 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DragonflyBlue* 
I'm trying to figure out why it matters so much?

I've birthed 8 children. 6 singletons and a set of twins. Three homebirths, the rest in the hospital.

I've not had an epidural or any other pain relief medication. I've had one induction and one birth where labor was augmented with pitocin.

I call them all natural.

If one really wants to have a "natural" childbirth, shouldn't one then forgo the use of labor balls, birthing pools, backrubs, hypnobirthing or other techniques? Come on, where does one draw the line? And who says one persons line is any better than the others?

A PP was right, there is no badge, no award for having the tightest vagina. What matters is that a baby is born safely, that the woman is safe and feels empowered by her experience. It's not about one upmanship.

Why all the qualifiers as to what a natural birth is or isn't?











i think you have to accept that people seldom use words to mean the exact same thing. that you can't define "natural childbirth" for another woman, because childbirth is a subjective experience, and "natural" is too vague an adjective. if you want to say unmedicated, uncoached, dry land vaginal delivery, you just have to use all those adjectives. if you want to shorthand all of that, then i suppose you could make up your own names for everything, but i wouldn't expect universal agreement or adoption.

i also think it's unnecessary to define another woman's birth experience for her. why aren't we talking about natural conception, either? i charted my temps and mucous, did i have a natural conception? why should anyone else care?


----------



## felix23 (Nov 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *artgoddess* 
yes this. I don't mean this thread to be a competition or to in anyway to state that one way is better than the other. *This is about the definition of the term "Natural Childbirth"*

the bolded part is what strikes me most. ooops i guess i didn't quote the poster who said that some women don't go into labor on their own and need help. That kind of "knowledge" is what I'm talking about when I say I fear the mainstream medical model. There are thousands, probably millions of women out there who really believe that their bodies won't go into labor on their own, millions who believe that that they don't make enough milk to feed their baby. When women are fed these kinds of lies by the media, by the medical institutions they entrust to care for them are they even given a chance? Are they even capable of making choices that are for their own benefit or their babies benefit?

Gethane you read my mind. i don't *really* care that much when a woman at church calls her medicated vaginal delivery a natural childbirth because she can't say vaginal. But I do care when I come to MDC and see the same definition. I want to be able to read posts on the Natural Family Living site and not have to ask "When you say natural, do you mean drug free? or do you mean vaginal with lots of interventions and medications?"

Yes i think that this is it. Go back to when I was born in 1970, and no one would have even asked if a woman had a c/s, because the c/s rate was so low, it was assumed that babies were born vaginally. But today, in this country, we have to ask. In my mom group of 8 women, half of the women had c/s and half had vaginal deliveries.

It's just my frustration with the lack of definition. It's not at all about one upmanship, and I think that's where a lot of women go in their heads right away in these discussions. The "she's taking my badge away" type of comments. It's a definition. I don't make burgers for dinner using ground turkey and call them hamburgers I call them turkey burgers. and by calling them what they are, I'm not saying that someone else's cooking isn't as good as mine. It's just a definition.

But it is going to be hard to agree on a definition of "natural childbirth". Who gets to decided what is considered natural and what is not. Why are birth balls, massages to deal with the pain, and hypnosis considered "natural" to many at MDC. To me none of those things are a natural part of labor. They are just additional things that the mother wants/needs to deal with the pain of giving birth. IMO as long as you are pushing a baby out of your vagina you are giving birth the natural way.


----------



## mija y mijo (Dec 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DragonflyBlue* 
I'm trying to figure out why it matters so much?

Me too.









Who am I to tell another woman what she should call her birth? If you want to call yours "natural", more power to you! My definition of natural childbirth is an unmedicated, vaginal birth... but that's just me.


----------



## swimswamswum (Oct 26, 2005)

I prefer the term "normal birth"- to me, this means no pharma interventions, no ivs, no one telling the woman when to push or how to position herself. I had a normal birth and it was painful and wonderful. So many people in my life were horrified that I didn't have my baby at a hospital and that it wasn't highly managed. I had a lot of people tell me that there's no way I could have my baby without drugs and monitoring and that they knew I would cave and go to a hospital. When I didn't, they were shocked. I feel like I've become a normal birth proselytizer since my daughter's birth. So many people have absolutely no clue about how empowering and wonderful birth can be. I love showing my pictures and talking about it because I hope it lets people know what a great experience birth can be.

My mother has been a nurse at a hospital for 30 years. She's seen a lot of births. She couldn't believe the pictures from my birth because I looked peaceful and happy in between contractions and even while pushing. She had never seen a birth where a woman was free to move and do what she needed to do. She also couldn't believe that my midwives were knitting and taking pictures during the pushing stages. She also was surprised about how much control I had over my experience. She said, the difference between this and an OB birth is that you were totally in control of your experience. I guess the mother being in control kind of encapsulates my idea of normal birth.

I agree with Art and others about the new applications of "natural birth" being very telling about how births are managed in the US. I also agree with Gethane that it's not a competition. I don't think anyone has tried to make it out to be one, but MDC is a place where normal or "natural" birth should be talked about without people being defensive.


----------



## almadianna (Jul 22, 2006)

I think that it is very telling when natural is considered anything that is not a csection. How far gone are we with this accepting interventions that are many times unnecessary that this is ok?

I also dont understand how "some women just dont go into labor". I dont know a single woman who has stayed pregnant forever...


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *almadianna* 
I also dont understand how "some women just dont go into labor". I dont know a single woman who has stayed pregnant forever...

Ok, I know that this thread isn't about the necessity of inductions....and I do believe that inductions are definitely overused.....but.....

some women don't go into labor *in time*. Sometimes inductions save the lives of women and babies.


----------



## almadianna (Jul 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama* 
Ok, I know that this thread isn't about the necessity of inductions....and I do believe that inductions are definitely overused.....but.....

some women don't go into labor *in time*. Sometimes inductions save the lives of women and babies.

while i dont necessarily doubt that, i dont know of a single time that has really happened in a healthy pregnancy. i talked to my midwife about it and she even admitted that in her 27 years of being a midwife she had seen people go overdue and be induced because of fears but not a single case of the women needing to be induced in a healthy pregnancy, some women can go to 44 weeks and still be ok.

(of course when there are cases with no fluid, or other things like that... this would be necessary but i am talking about pregnancies that dont have any of those things, i am just talking about women going overdue and nothing else being wrong.)


----------



## carriebft (Mar 10, 2007)

I said this in the other thread we had about this topic. I am very happy that my hospital did not define "natural childbirth" as 'any birth where the baby exits through the vagina'. Because they defined natural childbirth as intervention free/drug free, we had an immediate understanding. I never had to talk about pain medication and I was never asked...it was understood that when I said I wanted to have a natural childbirth that meant don't ask me questions about pain meds and the like.

I feel that it would have made me very uncomfortable and upset if I enterred a hospital with a definition of 'natural childbirth' being 'comes out the vagina.' Not only would I have had to field questions about medication (something I know would have planted the idea in my head-- ya know, kinda like back in college when my then boyfriend now Dh would say 'lets skip class' and that idea would be in my head and i would skip!







)...but also I would have been uptight and worried about section pushing and other intervention pushing.

So that is why I feel I like to have the definition.


----------



## rajahkat (Oct 1, 2003)

Not really related to the natural vs other discussion as I don't really care what people call their births. Mine are born at home with no one present but family, but I don't think I've ever referred to this as "natural".....

But I'm not sure I'm very fond of the term vaginal either. Not because I'm a prude, but because I find the etymology of the word vagina to be questionable.

~Kat


----------



## QueenOfThePride (May 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rajahkat* 
But I'm not sure I'm very fond of the term vaginal either. Not because I'm a prude, but because I find the etymology of the word vagina to be questionable.









You made my day.









I have been calling my last birth natural. I was induced with pitocin because of ROM and 18 hours with no labor. Anyway, it was painful beyond belief and I never asked for pain meds. Until this thread popped up, I thought nothing of calling my experience natural childbirth. I suppose it was medicated and I had some interventions. But calling it a medicated childbirth sounds like I had an epidural.


----------



## gwerydd (Jun 7, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *almadianna* 
I think that it is very telling when natural is considered anything that is not a csection. How far gone are we with this accepting interventions that are many times unnecessary that this is ok?

I also dont understand how "some women just dont go into labor". I dont know a single woman who has stayed pregnant forever...

i never went into labour but that was because i had an emergency c-section at 35 weeks.


----------



## almadianna (Jul 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gwerydd* 
i never went into labour but that was because i had an emergency c-section at 35 weeks.

and that is expected, you werent full term yet.


----------



## felix23 (Nov 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama* 
Ok, I know that this thread isn't about the necessity of inductions....and I do believe that inductions are definitely overused.....but.....

some women don't go into labor *in time*. Sometimes inductions save the lives of women and babies.

I agree. Sometimes by the time the mama goes into labor naturally it is too late. My mom is still grieving the loss of a baby 14 years ago because the dr refused to believe her that something was wrong and told her to just wait till she went into labor on her own.


----------



## raelize (Jun 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *shelleyd* 
When don't women go into labor on their own? I think that we've lost sight of what the natural physiological process of labor and birth is in our country. The process is interfered with the majority of the time and we don't know what it even is to not have that messed with. We think that an artificially induced labor is natural.


exactly, its not like we're going to be carrying around a 7 year old in our wombs.
rachel


----------



## almadianna (Jul 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rachel_eva* 
exactly, its not like we're going to be carrying around a 7 year old in our wombs.
rachel

what you said but i want to add to that, i am talking about people that just go overdue, not when there is something wrong.. if you had to have a csection before your due date because something was wrong of course you didnt go into labor!


----------



## hipmummy (May 25, 2007)

I like to refer to it as Normal birth. Soem of you would call mine un-natural. I had to be transferred for 20 to augment with pit. But I consider the other 16 hours to be 100%. It was beautiful. Just me in my own time. Eventhe twenty min at the hospital was not that bad. NO forced pushing, I did have to be on the monitor but the nurse ignored it an kept massaging my tight hip joint. Everyone let me call the shopts because I did not want a CS. Instead of saying ones bith is unatural ie hospital I say delivery for hospital and birth for birth center /Home.


----------



## audreyhorne (Dec 28, 2002)

when i was pregnant with my second child and interviewing homebiirth MWs, i was asked to describe my first birth, the birth of my daughter. i explained she was born at 33 1/2 weeks in a hospital, and that it was a natural birth. she was adamant that i did NOT have a natural birth, there was no way possible, even after i explained that we fought like hell to proceed with the same plans for labor and delivery as we had when we planned on delivering at home, much to the dismay of the hospital staff. i had intermittent external monitoring as she was premature, but no IVs, no medication, and labored and delivered on my own with my partner "catching" her, and we were both prepared for the consequences of our decision. thankfully, all's well that end's well, and after a brief stay in the NICU, my daughter was and continues to be fine, great. for someone, anyone to tell me that her birth, while not my ideal, wasn't natural seems insulting, and double-y so from a birth professional who is supposed to honor the spectrum of women who are bucking the system of inductions, epidurals, c-sections, etcetera. i know it's not intended as a "judgement" but it really feels that way when a woman works so hard to have some semblance of control over something that should be entirely in her control, but with the intervention of insurance companies and malpractice attorneys has become anything but.

oh, and we decided after that meeting to go with another MW.


----------



## aikigypsy (Jun 17, 2007)

I saw an article recently (too lazy to google it now) about a woman somewhere in North Africa who was "pregnant" for a very, very long time, something like 40 years. The baby had died in utero, calcified, and her body for whatever reason never went into labor.

So, it's possible, but highly unlikely.

I think that birth in a hospital can be natural. External monitoring doesn't interfere significantly with the natural process of labor, and massage, warm baths, a bit of encouragement etc. are all reasonably natural in my opinion, even though they require resources outside of the mother herself.

I would not consider a chemically induced labor natural, but if someone jolts herself into labor by walking 5 miles fast, that's natural to me.

So for me, natural childbirth means without chemical interventions of any kind, and without surgery, forceps, or vacuum extraction, and that it is not dependent on setting, so it can happen in a hospital, too.


----------



## almadianna (Jul 22, 2006)

actually if it is the one that everyone always talks about, she did go into labor but she was scared of her doctors because her baby was breech and they were going to give her a csection and she knew that many women had died of those in her village, so she never went to the hospital she just waited until the pain went away and went on with her life and they found it many years later.

And I agree that hospital births can be natural births, they just rarely are because most hospitals demand at least a heplock and will push for everything.


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aikigypsy* 
I saw an article recently (too lazy to google it now) about a woman somewhere in North Africa who was "pregnant" for a very, very long time, something like 40 years. The baby had died in utero, calcified, and her body for whatever reason never went into labor.

So, it's possible, but highly unlikely.

I think that birth in a hospital can be natural. External monitoring doesn't interfere significantly with the natural process of labor, and massage, warm baths, a bit of encouragement etc. are all reasonably natural in my opinion, even though they require resources outside of the mother herself.

I would not consider a chemically induced labor natural, but if someone jolts herself into labor by walking 5 miles fast, that's natural to me.

So for me, natural childbirth means without chemical interventions of any kind, and without surgery, forceps, or vacuum extraction, and that it is not dependent on setting, so it can happen in a hospital, too.

Interestingly enough that all fits into my definition as well. I think I just make the exception in MY birth. Because I did have a hep lock, which didn't interfere with anything but it was there. And I did push her out while on my back in a bed. And the OB (whom I love) was so strange looking in his protective gear, he looked more like he was prepared for a space walk than for catching a baby. So I call my birth and unmedicated hospital birth. But I don't actually correct anyone else who calls it natural. I would correct them for my first birth though, I had an epidural for the pain.

Even though I started this thread I would never tell any woman her birth was unnatural. I just feel here at MDC is a good place to discuss the rapid growth in medical intervention in Birth. Something that for thousands of years was so much more, I don't know, basic? Has become so very complicated. So much so that it has confused the definition of Natural Birth. I still like the definition I found and quoted in the OP best.


----------



## shelleyd (Jul 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aikigypsy* 
I saw an article recently (too lazy to google it now) about a woman somewhere in North Africa who was "pregnant" for a very, very long time, something like 40 years. The baby had died in utero, calcified, and her body for whatever reason never went into labor.

It was an ectopic pregnancy. Here's the link.










Shelley


----------



## QueenOfThePride (May 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aikigypsy* 
I saw an article recently (too lazy to google it now) about a woman somewhere in North Africa who was "pregnant" for a very, very long time, something like 40 years. The baby had died in utero, calcified, and her body for whatever reason never went into labor.

I saw a TV show about that. I think the baby was actually an abdominal ectopic pregnancy. The woman did go into labor and went to a hospital. She got scared when she heard a woman having a Cesarean with inadequate pain relief and ran back home. Her baby died and her labor stopped. Then her body mummified the baby.

But that is really off topic for this thread.


----------



## shelleyd (Jul 24, 2005)

Even she went into labor though! The baby was not born during that labor but she did go into labor! So even an ectopic pregnancy that goes to term will trigger labor.

Shelley


----------



## catters (Nov 20, 2007)

Thank You!


----------



## catters (Nov 20, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gethane* 
but that's the whole point, its NOT a badge, its a DEFINITION.

Sigh.

This is not a competition. There are no medals, or badges to be won. Everyone who takes a living baby home from the hospital is a winner.


Thank YOU!


----------



## gratefulmama2isaac (Sep 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MoreThanApplesauce* 
I face possible induction and if I must do so, will be going though labor and vaginal delivery without pain meds. Dang straight I'll call it natural childbirth. It is not a "made up definition."

Amen to that!


----------



## almadianna (Jul 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *QueenOfThePride* 
I saw a TV show about that. I think the baby was actually an abdominal ectopic pregnancy. The woman did go into labor and went to a hospital. She got scared when she heard a woman having a Cesarean with inadequate pain relief and ran back home. Her baby died and her labor stopped. Then her body mummified the baby.

But that is really off topic for this thread.

yes that is the one!!


----------



## lifescholar (Nov 26, 2006)

I have some issues with this, too...

I can not tell you how many times I've heard someone say "Yeah, I had a natural birth. I got the epidural as soon as I could, so I couldn't feel anything and it was great!" Sorry, that's not "natural"....

And then there's me. I had my son vaginally, but there was nothing "natural" about it! Even the 49 hours prior to getting an epidural were not "natural" by my definition of the word!! I was induced from the get-go. Ultimately, my body did its job, but not without a LOT of medical intervention.

Even if I hadn't ended up with an epidural, I would not call it a "natural birth". I would say "I had an induction without pain medication, which ended in a vaginal birth", or something to that effect.

For me, the term "natural birth" is reserved for an experience that FEELS natural. That will not include pain medications, will not include pitocin, and will include me working with my body effectively, feeling supported, and birthing my baby in the way that best suits my body and my baby.

However, I've seen some women go TOO far defining "natural birth", to the point that they were debating if you could still consider it natural if you had pitocin to help the uterus contract after the baby was born....







:

To me, I think that the definition of the term "natural" varies a bit from woman to woman. If you have a shot of pitocin, or you have AROM, but no other interventions, you may still really feel like the whole experience was very natural, peaceful, etc. You COULD qualify your natural birth by saying "I had a NCB with AROM", but really, you don't need to give EVERYONE the details...

But, I think that there are few things that are implied when you say you had a natural birth, and those are:
- no pain meds (or only local anesthetic for tearing)
- very limited medical intervention (ie. maybe AROM, even a small episiotomy, as long as it was consented to by the woman)
- the ability of the mother to work with her body
- vaginal birth (obviously, lol)


----------



## stiltzz (Jun 11, 2007)

For me, the most important thing was having a live and healthy baby---the mode of delivery was secondary to that.


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lifescholar* 
For me, the term "natural birth" is reserved for an experience that FEELS natural.

I feel the same, and my induced delivery felt as "natural" (in sensation, and in my body's response) as my non-induced delivery.

Again, I am not trying to convince anyone else that my delivery was natural....but want to point out that my contractions with pitocin (second child) were as manageable--or more manageable--as my natural contractions with my first birth. I believe it is true, for many women, that contractions on pitocin are more painful. But for me, that was simply not the case. It was no problem at all avoiding an epi with my induced labor--much moreso in my first! I like to point that out for other women facing medically necessary induction, and worrying about the pain. It isn't always more painful.


----------



## felix23 (Nov 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lifescholar* 
I have some issues with this, too...

I can not tell you how many times I've heard someone say "Yeah, I had a natural birth. I got the epidural as soon as I could, so I couldn't feel anything and it was great!" Sorry, that's not "natural"....

And then there's me. I had my son vaginally, but there was nothing "natural" about it! Even the 49 hours prior to getting an epidural were not "natural" by my definition of the word!! I was induced from the get-go. Ultimately, my body did its job, but not without a LOT of medical intervention.

Even if I hadn't ended up with an epidural, I would not call it a "natural birth". I would say "I had an induction without pain medication, which ended in a vaginal birth", or something to that effect.

For me, the term "natural birth" is reserved for an experience that FEELS natural. That will not include pain medications, will not include pitocin, and will include me working with my body effectively, feeling supported, and birthing my baby in the way that best suits my body and my baby.

However, I've seen some women go TOO far defining "natural birth", to the point that they were debating if you could still consider it natural if you had pitocin to help the uterus contract after the baby was born....







:

To me, I think that the definition of the term "natural" varies a bit from woman to woman. If you have a shot of pitocin, or you have AROM, but no other interventions, you may still really feel like the whole experience was very natural, peaceful, etc. You COULD qualify your natural birth by saying "I had a NCB with AROM", but really, you don't need to give EVERYONE the details...

But, I think that there are few things that are implied when you say you had a natural birth, and those are:
- no pain meds (or only local anesthetic for tearing)
- very limited medical intervention (ie. maybe AROM, even a small episiotomy, as long as it was consented to by the woman)
- the ability of the mother to work with her body
- vaginal birth (obviously, lol)

That's your definition, not mine. I have a friend who had a very, very traumatic unmedicated birth that left her with PTSD. Didn't feel natural at all to her. Her next dc she had an epi and said it was the most amazing, relaxing, wonderful experience in her life. For her that birth was the more natural one, not the one with no pain medication.


----------



## lifescholar (Nov 26, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *felix23* 
That's your definition, not mine. I have a friend who had a very, very traumatic unmedicated birth that left her with PTSD. Didn't feel natural at all to her. Her next dc she had an epi and said it was the most amazing, relaxing, wonderful experience in her life. For her that birth was the more natural one, not the one with no pain medication.

Well, I can certainly understand why the second one would be MORE natural than the first...but I still wouldn't call that NCB.

And I certainly agree that her first experience wasn't "natural". As I said, a birth must FEEL natural to the mother for her to consider it a natural birth.

I'm glad that her second birth was much more enjoyable and positive for her, but being numbed during birth is not "natural" by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## felix23 (Nov 7, 2006)

QUOTE=lifescholar;9784707]Well, I can certainly understand why the second one would be MORE natural than the first...but I still wouldn't call that NCB.

*And I certainly agree that her first experience wasn't "natural". As I said, a birth must FEEL natural to the mother for her to consider it a natural birth.*

I'm glad that her second birth was much more enjoyable and positive for her, but being numbed during birth is not "natural" by any stretch of the imagination.[/QUOTE]

But according to your other post her first birth WAS the "natural" one by your definition. She had no pain medication, no intervention, even though it was very traumatic, she was able to work through the pain to push a baby out of her vagina. But at the end of the day, to her it was the most unnatural birth in the world. She still will barely talk about it. The second birth, however, she felt at the end that she had experienced a natural birth with the help of modern medicine to deal with the pain. I'm not going to tell any person how they should feel about or what they should call their birth experience. I personally prefer the terms medicated, unmedicated, partially medicated, c-section birth. That way no one is confused about what type of birth a mom had. Natural and normal are just way too vague of words.


----------



## almadianna (Jul 22, 2006)

natural doesnt always mean good, natural generally means that it is good/better but in the case like the woman above that isnt necesarily true, but that also doesnt make the birth less natural because it wasnt good for her.


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *felix23* 
I personally prefer the terms *medicated,* unmedicated, *partially medicated*, c-section birth. .

tee hee is the difference between medicated and partially medicated like being pregnant and just a little pregnant? It's either medicated or it's not, right?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *felix23* 
That way no one is confused about what type of birth a mom had. *Natural and normal are just way too vague of words*.

My point is that they have BECOME to vague only because so many people have been sucked up into the mainstream medical model and anything other than major surgery is being labeled Natural by so many.

I'm sorry your friend did not have a good c/b experience. But because she enjoyed her epi birth more than her unmedicated birth does not make it more natural. It makes it a better experience that is all.


----------



## felix23 (Nov 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *artgoddess* 
tee hee is the difference between medicated and partially medicated like being pregnant and just a little pregnant? It's either medicated or it's not, right?

My point is that they have BECOME to vague only because so many people have been sucked up into the mainstream medical model and anything other than major surgery is being labeled Natural by so many.

I'm sorry your friend did not have a good c/b experience. But because she enjoyed her epi birth more than her unmedicated birth does not make it more natural. It makes it a better experience that is all.

I meant to put fully medicated, as in every intervention that you can have. Sorry, I had a toddler climbing on my back. But you said that a birth had feel natural for a mom to consider it natural. At the end of her second birth she felt she had had a natural birth, I am not going to tell her or anyone else how to label their birth experience. For my friend it was natural for her to desire relief from the overwhelming pain. Yes she tried other methods first such as a warm bath, rocking on a birth ball, even hypnosis (to me hypnosis is very, very unnatural, but that's just me), but when none of those things helped she went with the epi. None of those pain relief options were a natural part of labor.

To me trying to define a natural birth is like trying to define natural foods. To me when I say I eat only all natural foods I mean I eat organic foods. But to someone else it might mean that they eat non-organic fresh fruits and veggies, and to someone else it might mean that only eat locally grown food. That is why I am specific when speaking of our food choices and use the word organic instead of natural so that there is no confusion.

I don't expect people to agree with my definition of natural birth, so that's why I always use more specific terms. For my next birth I will be attemping a vaginal hospital birth with no medication and very little intervention. Now there is no confusion about what type of birth I hope to have.


----------



## meowee (Jul 8, 2004)

I can understand wanting to clear the definition from a clinical perspective but I don't think you should get judgmental on a personal level against women and how they feel about their births. My birth with an epidural felt magical and beautiful, no less so than my unmedicated births-- I was so connected to my baby-- it's hard to think of it as "unnatural," and I definitely don't think of it as such.


----------



## almadianna (Jul 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meowee* 
I can understand wanting to clear the definition from a clinical perspective but I don't think you should get judgmental on a personal level against women and how they feel about their births. My birth with an epidural felt magical and beautiful, no less so than my unmedicated births-- I was so connected to my baby-- it's hard to think of it as "unnatural," and I definitely don't think of it as such.

nobody is judging... by calling it not a natural birth doesnt mean that it is a bad birth or that the mom is bad for getting it. it just isnt natural.


----------



## aikigypsy (Jun 17, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *artgoddess* 
And the OB (whom I love) was so strange looking in his protective gear, he looked more like he was prepared for a space walk than for catching a baby.











Yes, that would certainly make it feel unnatural.

Feeling natural is not at all the same as being natural, in my opinion. What we expect and can cope with easily are not always natural.

Likewise, I agree with those who said that a natural birth is usually, but not always, better. Some of my main reasons for wanting an unmedicated hospital birth is that I believe that most of the medications cause more unnecessary complications than they prevent. In some cases, interventions can save the baby (and mother's) life and health. I just don't want interventions that will do more long-term harm than good.


----------



## Lizzie9984 (Sep 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *almadianna* 
nobody is judging... by calling it not a natural birth doesnt mean that it is a bad birth or that the mom is bad for getting it. *it just isnt natural.*

Exactly, not calling medicalized births bad, just not as Mother Nature herself designed for us, hence---not natural births. Man-made anything has never been regarded as natural, from food additives to synthetic drugs and synthetic fibers, etc. And man has made (or taken over, more specifically) the aspect of birth into something a little on the un-natural side...

We really do have to look at the definition of the words _without_ emotional hang-ups attached to them, otherwise there's never going to be any settling of any sort on those descriptions.


----------



## felix23 (Nov 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Lizzie9984* 
Exactly, not calling medicalized births bad, just not as Mother Nature herself designed for us, hence---not natural births. Man-made anything has never been regarded as natural, from food additives to synthetic drugs and synthetic fibers, etc. And man has made (or taken over, more specifically) the aspect of birth into something a little on the un-natural side...

We really do have to look at the definition of the words _without_ emotional hang-ups attached to them, otherwise there's never going to be any settling of any sort on those descriptions.

So if someone gives birth while sitting in a plastic swimming pool in their nice air conditioned living room is that considered a natural birth? If someone uses a heating pad to dull the aches during labor is that natural? What about soaking in a whirlpool bathtub? If a man-made item is un-natural, then isn't including anything in birth that is not found in nature making that birth un-natural? I'm trying to figure out why some man-made additives to birth are considered natural but others are not.


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *felix23* 
But you said that a birth had feel natural for a mom to consider it natural.

Where did I say that?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Lizzie9984* 
We really do have to look at the definition of the words _without_ emotional hang-ups attached to them, otherwise there's never going to be any settling of any sort on those descriptions.

I think this is part of the issue. People have an emotional hang up that by saying a medicated birth does not mean natural birth, they react as if I am saying that it is somehow a poorer experience. That is not at all the case.

My definition is: Noun: natural childbirth 'nachurul 'chIld`burth
Labour and childbirth without medical intervention; no drugs are given to relieve pain or aid the birth process


----------



## lifescholar (Nov 26, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *felix23* 
But according to your other post her first birth WAS the "natural" one by your definition.

This is what I said:

Quote:

*For me*, the term "natural birth" is reserved for an experience that FEELS natural. That will not include pain medications, will not include pitocin, and will include me working with my body effectively, feeling supported, and birthing my baby in the way that best suits my body and my baby.
and

Quote:

But, I think that there are few things that are implied when you say you had a natural birth, and those are:
- no pain meds (or only local anesthetic for tearing)
- very limited medical intervention (ie. maybe AROM, even a small episiotomy, as long as it was consented to by the woman)
- the ability of the mother to work with her body
- vaginal birth (obviously, lol)
I am not arguing that for your friend, her medicated birth felt MORE natural than her unmedicated, traumatizing one. I would not presume to tell another woman how she felt!!

But, the fact remains that if I was in her situation, I would not tell other people that my second birth was a "natural childbirth", because it wasn't.


----------



## lifescholar (Nov 26, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Lizzie9984* 
We really do have to look at the definition of the words _without_ emotional hang-ups attached to them, otherwise there's never going to be any settling of any sort on those descriptions.

I totally agree with this....if your birth wasn't natural, it wasn't natural! If YOU had a positive experience, and you had a good outcome (ie. healthy baby and healthy mom) why does it matter what label gets put on your birth experience?

To me, telling someone you had a natural childbirth is a way to give them FACTS about the birth, in general terms, without having to tell them your entire birth story. I see women all the time who react to "I had a natural birth" with disbelief, "wow, you're amazing", and "I really admire you", etc. That sort of thing really does serve to attach emotions to that definition. It becomes a badge, even if it wasn't intended to be so.

I have NO problems saying that I had a high-intervention birth experience. I know what the reasons were, I know how well I handled myself during labour, and I really enjoyed the experience. I plan to have natural births in the future, and they will be awesome, but I won't be any MORE proud of myself for those than I was for my first.


----------



## felix23 (Nov 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *artgoddess* 
Where did I say that?

Sorry, I got posts confused. You did not say that another poster did

I think this is part of the issue. People have an emotional hang up that by saying a medicated birth does not mean natural birth, they react as if I am saying that it is somehow a poorer experience. That is not at all the case.

My definition is: Noun: natural childbirth 'nachurul 'chIld`burth
Labour and childbirth without medical intervention; no drugs are given to relieve pain or aid the birth process


Quote:


Originally Posted by *lifescholar* 
This is what I said:

and

I am not arguing that for your friend, her medicated birth felt MORE natural than her unmedicated, traumatizing one. I would not presume to tell another woman how she felt!!

But, the fact remains that if I was in her situation, I would not tell other people that my second birth was a "natural childbirth", because it wasn't.

I can agree that an epidural is un-natural, it is not something that naturally happens in birth, but why are some man-made additives accepted and others are not? Who gets to decided what additive should be allowed? According to my dictionary natural means - "in a state provided by nature, without man-made changes". How is using a plastic swimming pool to birth in a part of nature? With all the people here on MDC who are worried about their children drinking out of plastic cups or playing with plastic toys I am always shocked how many have no issues with plastic swimming pools to give birth in. How about a plastic birth ball, that is a man-made additive. And those things can be dangerous too.







Or maybe I'm just clumsy, because I can't balance on one to save my life.

Going back to the natural food example, if you add anything at all the my fruits and veggies that does not occur naturally while they are growing, then they are not truly natural. They are still fresh fruits and veggies but with some man-made additives to assist with the growing process. So it seems to me that most people, even here on MDC, do not have a truly natural birth. They have a vaginal birth with man-made additives (heating pads, plastic swimming pools-natural hot springs are just not convienient are they







, birth balls, even an epidural) to help deal with the pain of childbirth. That is why I do not like the terms natural or normal, and I like to use more specific words to describe the birth process. This is already done some here at MDC. Using the term unassisted home birth instead of just home birth. Doing this makes sure that everyone is aware of the type of birth, I don't see why it should be so hard to do this with all births. But if someone wants to call their birth un-natural, it's not going to bother me at all. It's your birth, call it what you want but let other people do the same.

And as a side note, two years ago the day before Thanksgiving I was recoving from my totally un-natural, slightly traumatic, surgical birth experience. It still seems like yesterday. I can't believe my baby is turning two!


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

I'm not defining the word natural by itself. I'm defining a term, Natural Childbirth.

I understand that there are grey areas for people. But I've given my definition, and one that I think many would agree with. Throwing things out like "Oh what are the materials a birth pool is made of, shouldn't it only be natural if it's in a pond? are really just silly and/or baiting questions.


----------



## felix23 (Nov 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *artgoddess* 
I'm not defining the word natural by itself. I'm defining a term, Natural Childbirth.

I understand that there are grey areas for people. But I've given my definition, and one that I think many would agree with. Throwing things out like "Oh what are the materials a birth pool is made of, shouldn't it only be natural if it's in a pond? are really just silly and/or baiting questions.


I'm sorry if I came off as bating or silly, but I am really trying to understand how you decided which man-made, modern, synthetic additives are okay in a natural birth. I for one would not be okay with sitting in a plastic swimming pool while giving birth. It would bother me and feel un-natural, but if someone else does that and it helps them deal with the pain then I have no problem with them calling it a natural birth. Same with an epi, I would not be comfortable having a needle stuck in my spine, but if someone else decides to use that pain relieving method and call it a natural birth, it won't bother me at all.
I have a birthday party to plan, so I probably won't be back to this thead. But I still think it will be impossible to define natural childbirth because there are waaay too many gray areas.


----------



## Romana (Mar 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *artgoddess* 
I'm not defining the word natural by itself. I'm defining a term, Natural Childbirth.

I understand that there are grey areas for people. But I've given my definition, and one that I think many would agree with. Throwing things out like "Oh what are the materials a birth pool is made of, shouldn't it only be natural if it's in a pond? are really just silly and/or baiting questions.

I agree. I think making those kinds of added and somewhat irrelevant distinctions take away from the pertinent part of the discussion. And destroy any possible value or useful definition of the term.

We have a forum here called "Natural Family Living." People are able to understand what that means and participate without living without clothing, shelter, or any other "man-made" assistance in wild lands. In fact, the forum wouldn't work but for people having computers for communication. And yet, it still has a place, a purpose, a meaning, and could be roughly defined. I think suggesting you have to be buck naked and living without anything man-made in order to have the "Natural Family Living" forum mean anything would clearly defeat its purpose.

I think the term "natural childbirth" will have somewhat differing meanings for different people. However, I think it's helpful to consider other terms, like "unmedicated childbirth" or "induced birth" or "surgical birth" to help describe various forms of birth. To me, natural childbirth means minimal intervention and no drugs (epi, IV, pitocin, cervadil, etc.). I don't totally understand how effective black/blue cohosh is or if it changes the nature of contractions, but if it does, I'm not sure I'd call that a natural childbirth, either - because then we're talking about substantially altering the birth experience from its normal progression.

I do call my birth a "NCB." If I had had more interventions but no pain medication, and didn't really consider it NCB, I'd call it "unmedicated." As it was, the only intervention was being sewed up after the birth and being coached (though I mostly ignored it) during pushing.

I agree with pps that said the object is to come up with a relatively objective definition of natural childbirth, and not to agree that it's purely subjective and therefore could mean anything (sure, you can think about it that way, but it renders the term meaningless as a descriptor).


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *felix23* 
I'm sorry if I came off as bating or silly, but I am really trying to understand how you decided which man-made, modern, synthetic additives are okay in a natural birth. I for one would not be okay with sitting in a plastic swimming pool while giving birth. It would bother me and feel un-natural, but if someone else does that and it helps them deal with the pain then I have no problem with them calling it a natural birth. Same with an epi, I would not be comfortable having a needle stuck in my spine, but if someone else decides to use that pain relieving method and call it a natural birth, it won't bother me at all.
I have a birthday party to plan, so I probably won't be back to this thead. But I still think it will be impossible to define natural childbirth because there are waaay too many gray areas.

Firstly I never said that anything was "okay" or "not okay" this is a thread about defining a term, not about applying value or judgment to birth choices.

Secondly I gave a definition a few times, did you read it?


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Thought this was interesting:

Quote:

Normal birth is almost never an option in hospitals. Listening to Mothers II, a national survey of U.S. women having hospital births in 2005, reported that at most 2% of them received all six care practices Lamaze International, based on World Health Organization recommendations, deems supportive of "normal" birth.20 Virtually all women laboring in hospitals will be exposed to procedures, drugs, and restrictions that research shows to be harmful, ineffective, and usually both with routine or frequent use, and in some cases, with any use at all.5, 34 Here is a partial list together with the percentage of women in the survey having that procedure or practice:

* 35% induction for non-medical reasons: Many would also have been induced for discredited medical reasons such as the baby is predicted to be larger than average
* 60% nothing by mouth
* 83% IV drip
* 93% continuous electronic fetal monitoring
* 59% rupture of membranes
* 75% confinement to bed in labor
* (not reported) preset time limits for making progress in dilation or pushing
* 57% unphysiologic pushing positions
* 79% unphysiologic pushing techniques
* 17% fundal pressure (pressing on the mother's belly to help expel the baby)
* 25% episiotomy

Quote:

It is not logical to use what may have been a necessary cesarean as an argument for routine intervention. Intervening may be required in some cases, and some interventions such as cesarean section have been made safer, but this hardly justifies routine or frequent use. One might as well say that improved equipment and techniques for rescuing people from burning buildings makes tossing accelerant on the fire or starting the fire yourself a good idea. As an article on the Childbirth Connection website states: "*All mothers should have access to safest vaginal birth practices. We should not expect them to choose between vaginal birth with avoidable harms and cesarean section."*
From Dr. Michel Odent:

Quote:

_*How would you define "normal" birth?*_

The term 'normal' is useless when applied to birth. In 'normal' there is a cultural connotation. A birth can be considered normal in Rome, but not in Santa Fe. It is only in retrospect that a birth can be qualified 'normal' (the same about 'natural'). *What we need today is to qualify an attitude. That is why I suggested the concept of 'biodynamic attitude in childbirth'. A biodynamic attitude (in farming, in childbirth, etc.) is based on a good understanding of the physiological processes. In other words it means: working with the laws of Nature.*


----------



## felix23 (Nov 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *artgoddess* 
Firstly I never said that anything was "okay" or "not okay" this is a thread about defining a term, not about applying value or judgment to birth choices.

Secondly I gave a definition a few times, did you read it?


Yes I read your definition. You think that using medication during birth makes in un-natural, but other man-made modern pain relieving options are okay with you. My personal definition is that the natural way to birth a baby is for it to come out the vagina, it is up to the mother's discretion to determine which pain relieving options she is comfortable with including in a natural birth. What may appear to be un-natural to me (a swimming pool birth or hypsosis of any kind in my case) may be perfectly natural to someone else.


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

Most people I know still don't equate vaginal with natural.

However, most people I know do beleive that an unmedicated hospital birth counts as natural childbirth.

Which leads me to wonder - is the extreme notion of "if it was vaginal, it was natural," a mirror image, or a flipside, or a result, or somehow a partner of .... the equally extreme notion of "if you birthed in the hospital, or even had any attendants at all, your birth was not natural."

Definitions that are a long way off in either direction from the "median definition," tend to be thought of in much the same way - and the existence of definitions at one end of that continuum seems to almost encourage definitions at the other end.

I'm just musing about semantics here. I'm not arguing that anyone doesn't get to define "natural childbirth" for themselves in whatever way makes the most sense to them.

(My disclosure: I consider both my births natural. I went into labor myself both times, labored without medication, was attended by CNMs in a hospital setting, but left alone with in a dim room in a warm deep, tub. No one cut me, suggested my labor needed augmenting, or told me how to push. I'm pretty satisfied, all around, with both experiences - but I know I was lucky in the hospital that was available to me, and that having a natural birth is much harder/impossible in many hospitals.)


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *savithny* 

(My disclosure: I consider both my births natural. I went into labor myself both times, labored without medication, was attended by CNMs in a hospital setting, but left alone with in a dim room in a warm deep, tub. No one cut me, suggested my labor needed augmenting, or told me how to push. I'm pretty satisfied, all around, with both experiences - but I know I was lucky in the hospital that was available to me, and that having a natural birth is much harder/impossible in many hospitals.)

Sounds like a dream compared to my hospital.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

Quote:

However, most people I know do believe that an unmedicated hospital birth counts as natural childbirth.
So, referring to my post in #27, does that equal a natural birth because it is unmedicated even though it is a caesarean?


----------



## Lizzie9984 (Sep 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *applejuice* 
does that equal a natural birth because it is unmedicated even though it is a caesarean?

Uhhhh....they don't do c-sections without meds.


----------



## hellyaellen (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *carriebft* 
I said this in the other thread we had about this topic. I am very happy that my hospital did not define "natural childbirth" as 'any birth where the baby exits through the vagina'. Because they defined natural childbirth as intervention free/drug free, we had an immediate understanding. I never had to talk about pain medication and I was never asked...it was understood that when I said I wanted to have a natural childbirth that meant don't ask me questions about pain meds and the like.

I feel that it would have made me very uncomfortable and upset if I enterred a hospital with a definition of 'natural childbirth' being 'comes out the vagina.' Not only would I have had to field questions about medication (something I know would have planted the idea in my head-- ya know, kinda like back in college when my then boyfriend now Dh would say 'lets skip class' and that idea would be in my head and i would skip!







)...but also I would have been uptight and worried about section pushing and other intervention pushing.

So that is why I feel I like to have the definition.

Now that would be useful: some kind of "natural childbirth - friendly" tag for hospitals.

I guess i consider natural childbirth to exclude at minimum

pharmacutical, surgical or tequnical(procedures like arom) inductions (herbals, nipple stimulation, walking etc ok)
pharmacutical pain relievers (water, massage ok - hypnosis i'm not sure about)
and to include vaginal delivery

and preferably to include

optimal labor and delivery positions, directed by the mothers wishes
the golden hour where baby is not separated from mom for an hour after birth
for weighing and whatever
unrestricted diet durng labor and delivery

and to exclude
directed pushing
vaginal exams
the fetal momnitor

ftr my 1st birth was induced and double epi-ed (epidural and episiotomy) and they didn't even ask me about the episiotomy, i wasn't allowed to eat from the time i went to the hospital until dd was born some 20+ hours later. (i went way too early b/c my ob told me to)

my 2nd birth the only intervention i had was an episiotomy and the mw at least asked, she went ahead and did it anyway b/c i didn't say no...i said "ummmm....", that and the vaginal exam they talked me into upon arrival at the hospital, and the directed pushing.....

a rating system would be useful though


----------



## lyttlewon (Mar 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *artgoddess* 
Interestingly enough that all fits into my definition as well. I think I just make the exception in MY birth. Because I did have a hep lock, which didn't interfere with anything but it was there. And I did push her out while on my back in a bed. And the OB (whom I love) was so strange looking in his protective gear, he looked more like he was prepared for a space walk than for catching a baby. So I call my birth and unmedicated hospital birth. But I don't actually correct anyone else who calls it natural. I would correct them for my first birth though, I had an epidural for the pain.

Even though I started this thread I would never tell any woman her birth was unnatural. I just feel here at MDC is a good place to discuss the rapid growth in medical intervention in Birth. Something that for thousands of years was so much more, I don't know, basic? Has become so very complicated. So much so that it has confused the definition of Natural Birth. I still like the definition I found and quoted in the OP best.

With DD I don't say I had a natural birth I say I had an unmedicated birth. I don't even like to say I had an induction, it was induced by cervadil only, because people assume that means I had pitocin during labor. I don't know that I have ever used the term natural birth. Most people I would think consider unmedicated to mean without pain meds. With DS I just say I had a home birth. I had one person ask if my midwife gave me pain meds at home and that surprised me a little but explained no.

I had a friend go through 11 hours of what appeared to me to be horrendously painful posterior labor that ended in an epidural and eventually a c-section. She doesn't tell people she was unmedicated even though I tell her she needs to give herself more credit. I would consider that a bigger deal than my easy peasy 5 hour births. Heck she was in PAIN for one birth longer than I was with two unmedicated ones







.


----------



## lyttlewon (Mar 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *felix23* 
I'm sorry if I came off as bating or silly, but I am really trying to understand how you decided which man-made, modern, synthetic additives are okay in a natural birth. I for one would not be okay with sitting in a plastic swimming pool while giving birth. It would bother me and feel un-natural, but if someone else does that and it helps them deal with the pain then I have no problem with them calling it a natural birth. Same with an epi, I would not be comfortable having a needle stuck in my spine, but if someone else decides to use that pain relieving method and call it a natural birth, it won't bother me at all.
I have a birthday party to plan, so I probably won't be back to this thead. But I still think it will be impossible to define natural childbirth because there are waaay too many gray areas.

I would say that the line to draw with man made interfearence is whether or not it is invasive or changes things. Does that make sense? Like using a heating pad isn't really going to change your labor per se but having an epidural can, i.e. stalling of labor, inability to feel birthing sensations etc.


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lyttlewon* 
With DD I don't say I had a natural birth I say I had an unmedicated birth. I don't even like to say I had an induction, it was induced by cervadil only, because people assume that means I had pitocin during labor. I don't know that I have ever used the term natural birth. Most people I would think consider unmedicated to mean without pain meds. With DS I just say I had a home birth. I had one person ask if my midwife gave me pain meds at home and that surprised me a little but explained no.

I had a friend go through 11 hours of what appeared to me to be horrendously painful posterior labor that ended in an epidural and eventually a c-section. She doesn't tell people she was unmedicated even though I tell her she needs to give herself more credit. I would consider that a bigger deal than my easy peasy 5 hour births. Heck she was in PAIN for one birth longer than I was with two unmedicated ones







.

I know what you mean, I had an epidural for my first birth. After 30 hours of labor, 14 hours of which were really strong heavy, like transition type contractions I asked for the epidural. If anyone asks how long my labor with my first was I will sometimes say 34 hours, the first 30 I did drug free.


----------



## bri276 (Mar 24, 2005)

Quote:

Like using a heating pad isn't really going to change your labor per se but having an epidural can, i.e. stalling of labor, inability to feel birthing sensations etc.
yeah, but I've read MANY birth stories where the tub stalled out labor.

I guess my question is, why should someone care what someone else's definition of natural is? I'm all for informed, educated decisions, empowering decisions, but I'm about what's healthiest and best for mom and baby in any given situation, which is not _always_ (but often) what's most natural.

fwiw, whenever anyone in this VERY heavy epidural area says "She went natural" they mean no pain relief. Except for when they say "Did you have a c-section or natural?" in which case I say vaginal.


----------



## barefootpoetry (Jul 19, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bri276* 
yeah, but I've read MANY birth stories where the tub stalled out labor.

Well, all the mama has to do is climb out of the water. When labor stalls due to epidural, it's a straight ticket to the most "unnatural" birth of them all in the OR. There's no other choice (unless you're blessed with a gem of an OB!).

I see your point, really I do. But I think there's a difference between non-invasive pain relief and harmful interventions that always seem to stack up on top of each other like some kind of sadistic Jenga tower that's going to fall over and crush the birth completely.

I just read this entire thread at 3 a.m., and here is my definition of "natural birth": one that takes place without any medical interference that could halt the body's instinctual desires.

A heating pad isn't going to immobilize a laboring mom and dangle the threat of a C-section over her head, but an epidural will. And once you get the drugs, there's no turning back - however, you can stop using any "natural" kind of pain relief anytime you want: just tell DH to quit shoving those hot washcloths against your perineum.







Get my drift?


----------



## lyttlewon (Mar 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bri276* 
I guess my question is, why should someone care what someone else's definition of natural is?

Because when I am on a parenting board talking about birth I want people to know what I am talking about. I tell people I was induced and they think pitocin and forget (or don't know) you can induce labor and not use pitocin. So it does make a difference when conveying information the type of words that you use and the definition.


----------



## lyttlewon (Mar 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *barefootpoetry* 
Well, all the mama has to do is climb out of the water. When labor stalls due to epidural, it's a straight ticket to the most "unnatural" birth of them all in the OR. There's no other choice (unless you're blessed with a gem of an OB!).

I see your point, really I do. But I think there's a difference between non-invasive pain relief and harmful interventions that always seem to stack up on top of each other like some kind of sadistic Jenga tower that's going to fall over and crush the birth completely.

I just read this entire thread at 3 a.m., and here is my definition of "natural birth": one that takes place without any medical interference that could halt the body's instinctual desires.

A heating pad isn't going to immobilize a laboring mom and dangle the threat of a C-section over her head, but an epidural will. And once you get the drugs, there's no turning back - however, you can stop using any "natural" kind of pain relief anytime you want: just tell DH to quit shoving those hot washcloths against your perineum.







Get my drift?









yes that I what I mean. When I was done with the tub and my "natural" instinct told me to get out of the water I was able to. If I had a little birdy on my shoulder telling me I shouldn't have gotten an epidural I couldn't turn back. When I was in my birth pool something inside of me demanded I needed to birth somewhere else. I think that is a lot of the natural part of birth. When I was in the hospital, unmedicated, and my body was telling me to do something different there wasn't much I could do. I was in there for the long haul.


----------



## aikigypsy (Jun 17, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *barefootpoetry* 
Well, all the mama has to do is climb out of the water. When labor stalls due to epidural, it's a straight ticket to the most "unnatural" birth of them all in the OR. There's no other choice (unless you're blessed with a gem of an OB!).

<snip>

And once you get the drugs, there's no turning back - however, you can stop using any "natural" kind of pain relief anytime you want:

This doesn't fit the stories I've heard. It's usually epidural -> pitocin, and then sometimes a c-section, but not usually straight to c-section. I also have friends who've had drugs turned off during labor in hospitals, after a bit of a fight, so these interventions aren't totally irreversible.


----------



## Astrogirl (Oct 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Lizzie9984* 
Uhhhh....they don't do c-sections without meds.

It happens.









Even if not by accident/negligence, there has been at least one person who has had a c-section by hypnosis.


----------



## felix23 (Nov 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Astrogirl* 
It happens.









Even if not by accident/negligence, there has been at least one person who has had a c-section by hypnosis.


I've heard of that before, but I wasn't sure if it was true. But is being so hypnotised that you don't feel them cutting open your stomach a natural state? Also is using hypnosis so that you don't feel the pain of childbirth natural?

Is it still considered a natural childbirth if a mom gets an epi and either doesn't work in time or doesn't work at all?


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Sorry for another link, but this is one of my very favorite Mothering articles about birth. I think it's relevant to the discussion about drugs interfering with the physiologic process


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bri276* 

fwiw, whenever anyone in this VERY heavy epidural area says "She went natural" they mean no pain relief. Except for when they say "Did you have a c-section or natural?" in which case I say vaginal.









Are you sure about that because I've had this conversation before with a new mom I was bringing dinner to once:

Me: How was the birth for you?
Her: Oh it was awesome I had her naturally
Me: Oh that's great, good for you, I caved and got an epidural after 30 hours with my first.
Her: Oh God no, I *had* the epidural. Dang I got that thing hooked up the minute I step in the hospital. I meant I had her naturally, you know like not a c-section.
Me: (eyes glazing over, and big smile growing across my face)Oh that's great, I'm so happy it was a good experience for you.

If I hadn't of made the comparison to my birth, I would have thought she had a natural childbirth. No I'll give you in the grand scheme of life it's really not important that I know what sort of birth this woman had. However here at MDC, I do want to know when talking about Natural Childbirth at the Natural Family Living site that we are talking about the same thing. It's helpful when a new mother asks about nursing issues to know what sort of birth she had.


----------



## bri276 (Mar 24, 2005)

yeah, I'm sure. I'm talking about in depth discussions, bunch of women sitting around explaining their entire experience. I've never had anyone say "I went natural" without qualifying their statement with "no pain meds" etc. Although, as c-sections become more and more common, I'm sure the term natural will be applied to vaginal births simply because people don't want to say "vaginal"







:

for instance, at a Halloween party that I attended without my DH or DD, a guy who'd had too much to drink overheard me talking about my 2 yr old. He looked at my body and said "YOU have a 2 yr old?? C-section or natural?" and I just couldn't bring myself to say the word "vaginal" to this drunken dude who had just hit on me in the strangest way, ever!









I don't think it's really realistic that we're going to get all 50,000+ members on board with the same terminology, though!


----------



## felix23 (Nov 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *artgoddess* 
Are you sure about that because I've had this conversation before with a new mom I was bringing dinner to once:

Me: How was the birth for you?
Her: Oh it was awesome I had her naturally
Me: Oh that's great, good for you, I caved and got an epidural after 30 hours with my first.
Her: Oh God no, I *had* the epidural. Dang I got that thing hooked up the minute I step in the hospital. I meant I had her naturally, you know like not a c-section.
Me: (eyes glazing over, and big smile growing across my face)Oh that's great, I'm so happy it was a good experience for you.

If I hadn't of made the comparison to my birth, I would have thought she had a natural childbirth. No I'll give you in the grand scheme of life it's really not important that I know what sort of birth this woman had. However here at MDC, I do want to know when talking about Natural Childbirth at the *Natural* *Family Living* site that we are talking about the same thing. It's helpful when a new mother asks about nursing issues to know what sort of birth she had.

Can you define Natural Living? I can't. I can decide what living naturally means to me, but I am not going to tell someone that just because they do one thing they are not living a natural life. I think that there would be a lot of angry people on MDC if I decided that all people who use disposable diapers or don't eat all organic foods are just living, not living naturally. When someone says that they are living naturally, do you immediatly know what they mean? To some it might mean that they are comfortable using disposable diapers and not eating organic foods, but to someone else it might mean that they would never do those things. To me the definition of natural birth is the same. I'm not going to tell someone who pushed a baby out of their vagina with the help of an epi to deal with the pain that they just had a birth, not a natural birth. That is why it is helpful for people to use more specific words when talking about their birth experience, it gets rid of any confusion regarding what type of birth took place.


----------



## Arwyn (Sep 9, 2004)

Cesareans have also taken place with acupuncture as the only form of anesthesia. No "medications". Still not what I'd term a "natural birth", although it's got to be better for baby than to have the artificial painkillers in their system. But as much as I love acupuncture (and I do!), I'm not sure I'd be comfortable relying on it to block the sensation of being cut open.

I also find it interesting that so many people think "natural" excludes the use of pitocin for induction or augmentation. I guess I've always thought of "natural" as meaning (when it comes to birth), more or less, "without pain medication". If a woman can stand a pitocin induced or augmented labor without pain medication, I will bow to her, and she (in my mind) has entirely the right and more to choose to call her birth "natural". Sure, if we get down to a really literal definition of "natural", maybe it wasn't, but I find fundamentalist definitions to not be much use to me. I for one will not be happy should anyone say my at-home, unhindered waterbirth wasn't "natural" because I used a plastic tub.

Also, to say that because we can't agree on "natural" at the edges of the definition (like my plastic tub), and even if others have coopted the term to mean something different ("vaginal"), doesn't mean the term has no use. It's like the old pornography gag - I know it when I see it, even if we can't all agree whether all those naked Greek statues are obscene or art.


----------



## holly6737 (Dec 21, 2006)

To me, natural means without medication and without intervention. I've attended births before where the woman did not have an epidural, but still was induced with pitocin, had arom at 4 cm, IFM/IPC, IV, tons of vaginal exams, baby and mom separated after birth and was confined to bed for labor. To me, that's still not natural childbirth. Absence of epi doesn't equal NCB. To me, it's more than that.

When I think of NCB, I think "Could this birth have taken place exactly like this 1000 years ago?" That's more of what I think NCB is. For instance, for my HBAC I had no interventions except AROM (per my begging) after being stalled at 10 for over 2 hours. 1000 years ago I could have broken the bag with my fingernail, so I still think it was a NCB. Absence of an epi was part of it, but it wasn't the whole package.

When I think of "normal childbirth" I think of vaginal birth. So that's how I distinguish the two. Unmedicated w/o intervention- NCB. Vaginal birth- normal birth.

ETA: But I also don't look down on women who don't have NCB. I personally wouldn't choose not to have NCB (if I could help it), but I'm not judgmental of other's choices, so long as they were informed choices. I don't think having a NCB gives me extra "crunchy points". It's just what I wanted, and that's how I define the term.


----------



## wombatclay (Sep 4, 2005)

Interesting discussion! In my real world community, "natural childbirth" means a vaginal delivery. An "unmedicated birth" means a no-med/limited intervention type delivery.

I think "natural" and "normal" are terms that are very hard to pin down...so much of the meaning is socio-culturally constructed. Not to mention that both terms have "opposites" that are generally seen as perjorative. After all, defining a certain type of birth as natural or normal means that a birth outside of that definition becomes un-natural or abnormal. The speaker probably doesn't intend to make a negative judgement statement about the other person's birth experience, but that's what happens.


----------



## JaneSmith1010 (Apr 22, 2007)

Vaginal childbirth with anesthetic does not equal natural childbirth...but then again does unmedicated childbirth with an episiotomy? I think that the term 'natural childbirth' is reserved for unmedicated birth without intervention of the sort that would not have happened anyway...that is, an episiotomy that is not of the routine sort but realy neccessary is mimicing a tear that would have occured anyway.
having personally went to alot of effort to have a true natural childbirth without risky interventions like an epidural, i would be a little ticked to hear someone try to pass off a medicated vaginal delivery for a natural one. there are too many risks for mother and baby with those sorts of interventions.......our liberal misuse of these things is part of the reason the US ranks among the bottom of the developed countries in our birthing stats.


----------



## almadianna (Jul 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jhow32000* 
Vaginal childbirth with anesthetic does not equal natural childbirth...but then again does unmedicated childbirth with an episiotomy? I think that the term 'natural childbirth' is reserved for unmedicated birth without intervention of the sort that would not have happened anyway...that is, an episiotomy that is not of the routine sort but realy neccessary is mimicing a tear that would have occured anyway.
having personally went to alot of effort to have a true natural childbirth without risky interventions like an epidural, i would be a little ticked to hear someone try to pass off a medicated vaginal delivery for a natural one. there are too many risks for mother and baby with those sorts of interventions.......our liberal misuse of these things is part of the reason the US ranks among the bottom of the developed countries in our birthing stats.

thank you!


----------



## Thalia (Apr 9, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *holly6737* 
When I think of NCB, I think "Could this birth have taken place exactly like this 1000 years ago?" That's more of what I think NCB is.

You mean, without electricity, running water, indoor heat? How natural, exactly, is a plastic birth pool, for that matter?

I think it is tricky to draw the line between where technology can be helpful and facilitate the natural labor process (e.g. listening to beautiful music on your stereo) vs. interrupt it (insert your least favorite intervention here).


----------



## felix23 (Nov 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Thalia* 
You mean, without electricity, running water, indoor heat? How natural, exactly, is a plastic birth pool, for that matter?

I think it is tricky to draw the line between where technology can be helpful and facilitate the natural labor process (e.g. listening to beautiful music on your stereo) vs. interrupt it (insert your least favorite intervention here).

That is exactly what I have been asking. And birthing in a plastic pool would be just icky for me and would be a modern intevention instead of a modern labor facilitator. Nothing natural about it to me.


----------



## CherryBomb (Feb 13, 2005)

I don't get the whole "it's only natural if cavewomen/bushwomen did it" argument. I mean, tribal african women don't crap in toliets, either, does that make our bowel movements unnatural? (Not to mention the racism and privilege inherent in the "bushwomen do it" arguements, but that's another thread.)

While I think we should be honest in evaluating birth choices, getting too legalistic does nothing to advance the natural birth cause or educate and empower women. If you tell a woman natural birth is best for her and her baby, and then go on to say she has to give birth alone and naked in a cave for it to be natural...you're gonna lose a lot of people, fast.

I think it also encourages us to turn birth into a some type of pissing contest, which I don't like at all.


----------



## Nicole R. (Nov 30, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wombatclay* 
I think "natural" and "normal" are terms that are very hard to pin down...so much of the meaning is socio-culturally constructed. *Not to mention that both terms have "opposites" that are generally seen as perjorative.* After all, defining a certain type of birth as natural or normal means that a birth outside of that definition becomes un-natural or abnormal. The speaker probably doesn't intend to make a negative judgement statement about the other person's birth experience, but that's what happens.

I like this point. Maybe what we also need are non-pejorative terms for births that were not "natural." Look at us striving to precisely define the meaning of _natural_ birth, but what words do we have to describe the many variations on medically and/or chemically assisted births? Certainly those are births that most of us would prefer to avoid, but it would still be nice to have words that don't _inherently_ contain negative judgment.


----------



## Nicole R. (Nov 30, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Thalia* 
I think it is tricky to draw the line between where technology can be helpful and *facilitate* the natural labor process (e.g. listening to beautiful music on your stereo) vs. *interrupt* it (insert your least favorite intervention here).

I do think this is the key to my personal definition of "natural" childbirth. To me, labor-inducing and pain-reducing chemicals are not natural, as they _interrupt_ the natural course of labor. Go ahead and have all the labor _facilitators_ you want, though -- go ahead and go for a walk to start labor, and bring on the birth ball, shower, massage, and most importantly the positive messages (like MDC







), etc., and I'll still consider the birth to be natural.

But does continuous fetal monitoring actually _interrupt_ labor? Its results can lead a caregiver to utilize interventions which interrupt the natural course of labor, but is it an _intervention_ in and of itself? I would say not, although it's surely better to avoid it if you can. And what about episiotomy? Does it _interrupt_? What about hydrating IVs?

So I personally use the term "natural childbirth" for one with no chemicals of any sort, although that still allows for many other types of intervention. I do think "natural childbirth" needs to remain a fairly broad definition. Maybe more specific terms like "intervention-free childbirth" or "non-medically-managed childbirth" (that's clunky!) could provide further refinement to the _natural_ realm if needed.


----------



## attachedmamaof3 (Dec 2, 2006)

It seems weird to me that people on MDC are actually arguing about this! Maybe because it seems so simple in my mind.

Natural birth= drug and intervention free vaginal birth. Period.

_American Heritage Dictionary_ - natural childbirth
n. A method of childbirth in which medical intervention is minimized and the mother often practices relaxation and breathing techniques to control pain and ease delivery.

_WordNet_ - natural childbirth
noun
labor and childbirth without medical intervention; no drugs are given to relieve pain or aid the birth process


----------



## swimswamswum (Oct 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *attachedmamaof3* 
It seems weird to me that people on MDC are actually arguing about this! Maybe because it seems so simple in my mind.

Natural birth= drug and intervention free vaginal birth. Period.

_American Heritage Dictionary_ - natural childbirth
n. A method of childbirth in which medical intervention is minimized and the mother often practices relaxation and breathing techniques to control pain and ease delivery.

_WordNet_ - natural childbirth
noun
labor and childbirth without medical intervention; no drugs are given to relieve pain or aid the birth process

Agreed! Well put!


----------



## readytobedone (Apr 6, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *green_momma2007* 
who are we to take the "natural" badge away from her.

i consider my _labor_ natural, since i got through everything but the actual extricating of the child with no drugs or interventions (save a couple of checks--i had no IV, etc.). but she wouldn't come out, so they cut her out. and yes, i had pain meds for that part









i always say i "labored drug-free and pushed drug-free for over 3 hours, then had to get an epi and have a c-section."

it is important to me that i labored for all that time drug-free, even if the birth itself wasn't "natural."

ETA: so i meant to say, all this means, i want my "badge."


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *attachedmamaof3* 
It seems weird to me that people on MDC are actually arguing about this! Maybe because it seems so simple in my mind.

It did to me too. But starting this thread has been a real eye opener about what MDC has become.


----------



## JaneSmith1010 (Apr 22, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Thalia* 
You mean, without electricity, running water, indoor heat? How natural, exactly, is a plastic birth pool, for that matter?

I think it is tricky to draw the line between where technology can be helpful and facilitate the natural labor process (e.g. listening to beautiful music on your stereo) vs. interrupt it (insert your least favorite intervention here).

Are you kidding me? You're really taking her statement that literally? I think when she says 'could things have happened like this 1000 years ago' she's referring to the physical process of birthing. Having indoor heat doesn't interfere with the birthing process does it?


----------



## JaneSmith1010 (Apr 22, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CherryBomb* 
I don't get the whole "it's only natural if cavewomen/bushwomen did it" argument. I mean, tribal african women don't crap in toliets, either, does that make our bowel movements unnatural? (Not to mention the racism and privilege inherent in the "bushwomen do it" arguements, but that's another thread.)

While I think we should be honest in evaluating birth choices, getting too legalistic does nothing to advance the natural birth cause or educate and empower women. If you tell a woman natural birth is best for her and her baby, and then go on to say she has to give birth alone and naked in a cave for it to be natural...you're gonna lose a lot of people, fast.

I think it also encourages us to turn birth into a some type of pissing contest, which I don't like at all.

I hate to even answer this question but, actually toilets are not a natural or very good way for us to eliminate. This should actually take place in a squatting position and not in a sitting one, which is only one of many reasons we have so many bowel issues. That may not be a very good argument.

Also, perhaps some posters are being taken too literally. Maybe the basic point is that nature is best left undisturbed in healthy cases...that's it. No, you don't have to find a cave, no you don't have to be naked. You have to be healthy and safe. You're right about it turning into a pissing match, which isn't good. I don't think it needs to be a competition, I think women need to do what is best for thier babies.


----------



## Thalia (Apr 9, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jhow32000* 
Are you kidding me? You're really taking her statement that literally? I think when she says 'could things have happened like this 1000 years ago' she's referring to the physical process of birthing.

I'm just trying to show that using "Could this birth have taken place exactly like this 1000 years ago?" as the key criterion for having a natural childbirth isn't ideal. As holly6737 mentioned, AROM (certainly part of the physical process of birthing) was possible 1000 years ago. But not everyone at MDC would agree that a natural birth includes artificial rupture of the membranes. In fact, I think that's a rather controversial topic.

Then there are things like the use of castor oil and black and blue cohosh to induce or augment labor. Are those natural? Yes. Could they have been used 1000 years ago? Yes. Are they an intervention? Yes.

While I do agree that "vaginal delivery does not equal natural childbirth", I don't think there is any one simple definition or criterion for natural childbirth that is going to satisfy everyone, even everyone here at MDC.

Baby's up...gotta go.


----------



## JaneSmith1010 (Apr 22, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Thalia* 
I'm just trying to show that using "Could this birth have taken place exactly like this 1000 years ago?" as the key criterion for having a natural childbirth isn't ideal. As holly6737 mentioned, AROM (certainly part of the physical process of birthing) was possible 1000 years ago. But not everyone at MDC would agree that a natural birth includes artificial rupture of the membranes. In fact, I think that's a rather controversial topic.

Then there are things like the use of castor oil and black and blue cohosh to induce or augment labor. Are those natural? Yes. Could they have been used 1000 years ago? Yes. Are they an intervention? Yes.

While I do agree that "vaginal delivery does not equal natural childbirth", I don't think there is any one simple definition or criterion for natural childbirth that is going to satisfy everyone, even everyone here at MDC.

Baby's up...gotta go.

I can agree to that, some good points. I'm just made grumpy by what might be nit-picking....but then again that's what happens in these MDC 'controversial' conversations, I guess. I'm more of a big picture, stick to the basic point sort of person though.


----------



## In Exile (Jan 12, 2007)

I love MDC for many things. But that just is a "natural" way to deny others their own feelings about their birth.

Good lord, is this a competition covered up nicely in semantics?? Sure seems like it.

I am all for watching your words as words are powerful in human minds but honestly this thread does nothing help women in becoming more powerful and realize what they are capable off. It's just a crunchier than though covered up in "I am more aware of my language than you are", sorry.


----------



## almadianna (Jul 22, 2006)

The problem that I see with this whole argument is that people are taking it as an insult that their births were not natural, it isnt... I wont call a pear and apple eventhough they might both be green in color. It isnt insulting to the pear is it?
You can call it an apple if you want but that wont make it an apple that will just make those around you confused.

If you got an epidural/induced/etc own your choice and dont feel like people saying that you didnt have a natural birth is an insult.. it is a description. That is it.

I really am bothered by the fact that we are so gone as a society that we dont understand what it means to have a natural birth anymore. Basically if you did anything medical to augment your labor, lessen pain, or otherwise change the course or what your body would have naturally done while in labor. It was not natural.

Walking around can change it, but it is not medical. A pool can change it but it is not medical. We are talking about medical interventions not whether the bed you gave birth on had plastic or not and if the women 2000 years ago didnt have it then we cant call it natural if we have it. We are talking about changing what your body would have done naturally through medical procedures. Simple as that.

I really am sorry that people dont understand that and take it so personally that they want the definition of the word changed to suit their needs.

Things like teas and castor oil I leave up to the discretion of the person involved more than anything because those arent medical and because they could be natural. Personally I wouldnt call it natural because that is my belief but I wont knock it. On the other hand seeing women that say that their epidural-laden hospital birth with coached pushing was natural I cant agree with.


----------



## In Exile (Jan 12, 2007)

I understand that epidurals, pitocin and birthing pools with aromatherapy are not natural. But this kind of discussion does not help at all to empower women. It just says "well my naive little dear let me tell you you went through labour but I hate to say to you that was not natural. You might have endured pain but you are just a stupid little mainstream dummy if you are insulted by me correcting your perception". That's how the discussion comes across.

I understand the need for people be more aware of their words but honestly that just not the way to reach anyone out there.

In other languages, is there the same "problem"? I'm from Germany and trying to remember if we even have an euphimistic term like "natural childbirth". Oh yeah, it's called "natuerliche Geburt" but somehow there seems to be less hairsplitting. For some reason when you say "natural childbirth" people seem to envision dogstyle panting and batique shirts.


----------



## almadianna (Jul 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *In Exile* 
I understand that epidurals, pitocin and birthing pools with aromatherapy are not natural. But this kind of discussion does not help at all to empower women. It just says "well my naive little dear let me tell you you went through labour but I hate to say to you that was not natural. You might have endured pain but you are just a stupid little mainstream dummy if you are insulted by me correcting your perception". That's how the discussion comes across.

I understand the need for people be more aware of their words but honestly that just not the way to reach anyone out there.

In other languages, is there the same "problem"? I'm from Germany and trying to remember if we even have an euphimistic term like "natural childbirth". Oh yeah, it's called "natuerliche Geburt" but somehow there seems to be less hairsplitting. For some reason when you say "natural childbirth" people seem to envision dogstyle panting and batique shirts.

So now we are supposed to change the meaning of a word to make some people feel better?
You call it insulting I call it informing. But I guess it all depends on the way that they are corrected. I have no problems correcting people when they have said that because I dont want a world where natural means other than a csection because that would be sad.


----------



## In Exile (Jan 12, 2007)

You know what I also realize? I am always very cautious and sort of waiting if I hear certain terms and phrases in the US. Because I know people have a ton of different things hiding behind them. I for one don't take the term "natural" very serious anymore because sometime it seems people put a big label on things as if that means you can somehow "purchase" them. "Oh, you want a natural childbirth?" Somehow even that comes across a product to be chosen.

Just as "natural family living" makes me scratch my hat.

The whole "natural" here in the US confuses me. Just as I was always confused by the way conversations end "see ya". Could really mean, I'll se you next week or could mean I don't care to ever see you again but I just say something.

Especially in the US I don't always even trust what people say since nobody seems to say directly what they mean you always have to scratch away several layers.
So, for example Germans are considered rude and impolite- they are just straight to the point which seems rude to other cultures and I just have a problem sometimes with debates like that.


----------



## almadianna (Jul 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *In Exile* 
So, for example Germans are considered rude and impolite- they are just straight to the point which seems rude to other cultures and I just have a problem sometimes with debates like that.

I am considered rude too, probably because I am not from the US.


----------



## AstridS (Mar 9, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *almadianna* 
I am considered rude too, probably because I am not from the US.









me too.


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *almadianna* 
So now we are supposed to change the meaning of a word to make some people feel better?
You call it insulting I call it informing. But I guess it all depends on the way that they are corrected. I have no problems correcting people when they have said that because I dont want a world where natural means other than a csection because that would be sad.

thank you.

although I don't correct people. I did not start this thread as some sort of pissing contest and I resent the implication that I did. I am very saddened that womens birth choices are so far removed from the birthing mother that anything other than major surgery is called natural childbirth.

I was a birth choices talk recently and a woman raved about how nice they were at the local hospital to her, they *let* her hold her baby after he was born for a few minutes before taking him off to the warming bed. And most of us listening were so pleased to hear that positive tid-bit about our local hospital until the speaker pointed out the use of the word let. It's a sad state of things when women talk about our bodies and our children as if they are not our own. I hear things like, "the doctor will *allow* me to go 5 days past EDD." And yet I'm told here that I am taking away a womans ability to realize her power? I don't think so.

Straight and to the point:
*natural childbirth*
_noun
labor and childbirth without medical intervention; no drugs are given to relieve pain or aid the birth process_

sorry if my being to the point is considered rude.


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Hi, everyone









Wanted to share this Peggy O'Mara's _Mothering_ editorial. It's _very_ to-the-point.

Quote:

I think we have failed as childbirth educators because we've framed natural childbirth as just another choice, rather than as the best choice. Natural childbirth is the best choice because it is the safest choice. It is safest because, by definition, it involves fewer medical interventions, and it is these interventions that contribute to at least 50 percent of maternal deaths.


----------



## almadianna (Jul 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *artgoddess* 
thank you.

although I don't correct people. I did not start this thread as some sort of pissing contest and I resent the implication that I did. I am very saddened that womens birth choices are so far removed from the birthing mother that anything other than major surgery is called natural childbirth.

I was a birth choices talk recently and a woman raved about how nice they were at the local hospital to her, they *let* her hold her baby after he was born for a few minutes before taking him off to the warming bed. And most of us listening were so pleased to hear that positive tid-bit about our local hospital until the speaker pointed out the use of the word let. It's a sad state of things when women talk about our bodies and our children as if they are not our own. I hear things like, "the doctor will *allow* me to go 5 days past EDD." And yet I'm told here that I am taking away a womans ability to realize her power? I don't think so.

Straight and to the point:
*natural childbirth*
_noun
labor and childbirth without medical intervention; no drugs are given to relieve pain or aid the birth process_

sorry if my being to the point is considered rude.

That "allow" and "let" language bothers me as well. We have lost the belief that we have a say and we have control over our own bodies and our own children. We have been brainwashed into thinking "doctor is right, must listen always".


----------



## JaneSmith1010 (Apr 22, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *almadianna* 
I am considered rude too, probably because I am not from the US.


I have a friend from Holland who just expressed this to me. She says European people are more straightforward and not so caught up in politeness and PC. I guess it is one of those cultural quirks that we Americans tend to prefer fibs and sparing feelings than just getting over ourselves and accepting some truths.


----------



## erin_brycesmom (Nov 5, 2005)

Quote:

sorry if my being to the point is considered rude.
Yeah, strange that straight forward has been warped into being considered rude. I have a theory or two on why that might be but yeah I have experienced that myself. I think it effects so much in our society and goes way beyond childbirth unfortunately. Factual information has to be sugar coated and/or compromised in order to be welcomed. Anywho, I appreciate you being to the point here.


----------



## JenBuckyfan (Nov 30, 2007)

Is there a reason why there is such a need to have this definition? I'm newer to MDC and I have to say that I'm a bit disappointed that so much time is spent on trying to define and/or label oneself or others. Our society is currently so focused on how we can each be exclusive, be it individually, through a social group or social status, through the career we chose to the type of birth we had to whether or not we breastfeed -- it's driving me nuts lately. I don't disagree that a definition is a definition, but shouldn't we be more focused on the outcome of whether or not the mom and baby were and are happy and healthy? (Wait, what's your definition of healthy, I'm sure there are 1000 definitions on MDC depending on if you breastfeed or don't, whether you use diapers or don't, we can get into if you eat meat or if you don't, exercise or don't..... it can go on and on.) I won't even type what my definition of natural is here, though I do have a definition. I'd be more impressed with this board if there was a bit more of an inclusive demeaner. It's always hard to interpret someone's tone of voice through type-written words. Many times I find that comments seem to be condescending and a bit self-rightous - though, I assume that they weren't originally meant to come across this way. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for debate and all for playing the devil's advocate, and I feel that we are all women (well most of us who post are anyway), we all have different bodies and different minds and are fully able to have our own opinions and express them.

I just feel that pregnancy and childbirth are different experiences for all women physically, mentally, and emotionally. I embrace what you feel is the way to move through both, and regardless of how I would define your experiece, I didn't live through it and I am just happy that you did what you felt was best at the time to make you feel happy and healthy along with your baby.

I get so tired of exclusiveness and women nit-picking each other!


----------



## gethane (Dec 30, 2003)

I really don't see this as women nit-picking each other, rather dissatisfaction with the mainstreaming of such a high level of birth interventions that as long as the baby comes out the vagina, U.S. society says "natural!"

eta: none of my births were natural. 3 c-sections, 2 highly managed vbacs. I'm HAPPY with the outcome of my birth experiences, but they still weren't "natural."


----------



## almadianna (Jul 22, 2006)

it isnt nitpicking... it is informing and educating ourselves and each other.

My births were not completely natural but I will defend that word, especially here on MDC. This place is a haven for those of us that dont do things that are completely mainstream. It saddens me that this word is being taken so lightly recently.

Our society is focused on medicalized births, and if those of us that are supposed to be fighting to change things dont care about how this word is used, well we cant expect people to care about the changes that we are trying to make. "Healthy mom and healthy baby" is great, but ultimately these intervention lead to less healthy moms and less healthy babies. Everything from NICU stays to breastfeeding problems, to permanent damage to both mother and child. So I am sorry if it seems like I am being nitpicky but this is a very important topic and I feel shocked that it is seen like we are being picky when in fact we are just trying to make sure that this term doesnt lose its importance... like the modern medical establishment seems focused on doing.


----------



## JenBuckyfan (Nov 30, 2007)

It has been said on some boards that the medical community uses fear to get women to make uniformed medical decisions. Isn't that what's also being said when we say that interventions lead to unhealthy moms and babies? One of my cousins twin babies died at birth, without medical intervention she wouldn't have made it either. One of my friends, who is the in the top tier of healthy people I know, had to have her baby 3.5 months early weighing only 1.5 pounds, she also almost didn't make it. Yes, these are extreme circumstances regarding intervention and I do agree that our society does focus on medicalized births and I agree with pp that some people are too quick to go down the epi road. However, I get tired of reading that if a mother doesn't breastfeed she must be misinformed, if she doesn't have a homebirth she must be misinformed, etc. I'm for breastfeeding and homebirthing is an option if people want it, just for the record.

I care that a woman has the choice to have the birth that she wants and that she is informed of her choices. It's likely that in some areas, the resources are not available for some choices, and some choices may not be discussed like they should. I agree with a pp that said that the word "natural" is almost too vague. While I do think a homebirth with no drugs seems quite natural, I also see that being in a hospital bed with the support of the medical community around me may be natural as well. I also agree with another pp that it's easy to take this to the extreme - in fact I was talking with my DH last night about a comment on the homebirth section, and his first response was, "Well a house isn't really natural, neither is a bathtub. Having a baby in the woods, now that would be natural!"

How much does the definition of natural change with the influences we see day to day on tv? I wouldn't be surprised if the number of c-sections being requested has gone up (maybe only a fraction in this example), especially as women hear that certain celebrities get them done early so they don't have as many stretch marks. Same thing for the topic of some women putting of having babies earlier because they see that celebrities spawn children into their late 40's and early 50's and are gawked at and told how beautiful they are (never mind the stylists, hair and make-up people making sure they look fabulous). I think our definitions get shifted because "what's on tv or the internet is the norm" kind of thinking. You could make this case with tv shows as well, reality or not reality-driven. Obviously many people do not see the world this way, and I agree that those who don't need to fight to keep working to keep people informed. I just don't like the "well, this friend of mine had a baby in a hospital, how could she say it was natural with all of those IV's and sick people around?" type of statements.

Anyway, re-reading what I've written, this seems to be more of a babble with multiple topics. Basically I equate the word "natural" with the same subjectiveness as the word "healthy" and if anything, I think that the medical profession should at least provide the information for the various types of births and then give their professional opinion based on what they know of you and it'd be nice if they could refer you to an alternate opinion from a respected midwife so you can choose what you like (assuming the opinions are so polar opposite that you're stuck in the middle!).


----------



## almadianna (Jul 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JenBuckyfan* 
It has been said on some boards that the medical community uses fear to get women to make uniformed medical decisions. Isn't that what's also being said when we say that interventions lead to unhealthy moms and babies? One of my cousins twin babies died at birth, without medical intervention she wouldn't have made it either. One of my friends, who is the in the top tier of healthy people I know, had to have her baby 3.5 months early weighing only 1.5 pounds, she also almost didn't make it. Yes, these are extreme circumstances regarding intervention and I do agree that our society does focus on medicalized births and I agree with pp that some people are too quick to go down the epi road. However, I get tired of reading that if a mother doesn't breastfeed she must be misinformed, if she doesn't have a homebirth she must be misinformed, etc.

I care that a woman has the choice to have the birth that she wants and that she is informed of her choices. It's likely that in some areas, the resources are not available for some choices, and some choices may not be discussed like they should. I agree with a pp that said that the word "natural" is almost too vague. While I do think a homebirth with no drugs seems quite natural, I also see that being in a hospital bed with the support of the medical community around me may be natural as well. I also agree with another pp that it's easy to take this to the extreme - in fact I was talking with my DH last night about a comment on the homebirth section, and his first response was, "Well a house isn't really natural, neither is a bathtub. Having a baby in the woods, now that would be natural!"

How much does the definition of natural change with the influences we see day to day on tv? I wouldn't be surprised if the number of c-sections being requested has gone up (maybe only a fraction in this example), especially as women hear that certain celebrities get them done early so they don't have as many stretch marks. Same thing for the topic of some women putting of having babies earlier because they see that celebrities spawn children into their late 40's and early 50's and are gawked at and told how beautiful they are (never mind the stylists, hair and make-up people making sure they look fabulous). I think our definitions get shifted because "what's on tv or the internet is the norm" kind of thinking. You could make this case with tv shows as well, reality or not reality-driven. Obviously many people do not see the world this way, and I agree that those who don't need to fight to keep working to keep people informed. I just don't like the "well, this friend of mine had a baby in a hospital, how could she say it was natural with all of those IV's and sick people around?" type of statements.

Anyway, re-reading what I've written, this seems to be more of a babble with multiple topics. Basically I equate the word "natural" with the same subjectiveness as the word "healthy" and if anything, I think that the medical profession should at least provide the information for the various types of births and then give their professional opinion based on what they know of you and it'd be nice if they could refer you to an alternate opinion from a respected midwife so you can choose what you like (assuming the opinions are so polar opposite that you're stuck in the middle!).


I dont think that anyone will disagree that interventions can help but i dont know if anyone would disagree that there are too many of them.
We dont need scare tactics to not get women to get interventions, the numbers speak for themselves... they can and do lead to more problems in births.

Nobody here is talking about not breastfeeding or not homebirthing equals misinformed... I think that you are taking this a different way. You also arent reading what has been written.

The whole last part of your comment actually reinforced what I was trying to say, people look at what has been portrayed on television and on other media and they will follow it. This word is important because this is a constant battle to try and keep our choices valid and doable. The more people that think that the TV csections are normal the harder this is going to be for those of us who dont believe they are. This word means a lot to a lot of people.


----------



## attachedmamaof3 (Dec 2, 2006)

The word natural itself can mean many things, yes. We can get into all of that, delve deep, etc. on a different post.

What we are talking about here is the fact that it seems to be a fad lately that just because a baby comes out of your vagina, that it is a natural childbirth. Like it or not, natural childbirth is a phrase that has specific meaning, which I listed from the dictionary and will repost below. This is not a discussion about what the meaning of "is" is...(you get my point) it is over a specific phrase with specific meaning.

_American Heritage Dictionary_ - natural childbirth
n. A method of childbirth in which medical intervention is minimized and the mother often practices relaxation and breathing techniques to control pain and ease delivery.

_WordNet_ - natural childbirth
noun
labor and childbirth without medical intervention; no drugs are given to relieve pain or aid the birth process

This is not judgement. This is a definition.


----------



## almadianna (Jul 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *attachedmamaof3* 

This is not judgement. This is a definition.

thank you so much.


----------



## erin_brycesmom (Nov 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JenBuckyfan* 
Is there a reason why there is such a need to have this definition? I'm newer to MDC and I have to say that I'm a bit disappointed that so much time is spent on trying to define and/or label oneself or others. Our society is currently so focused on how we can each be exclusive, be it individually, through a social group or social status, through the career we chose to the type of birth we had to whether or not we breastfeed -- it's driving me nuts lately. I don't disagree that a definition is a definition, but shouldn't we be more focused on the outcome of whether or not the mom and baby were and are happy and healthy? (Wait, what's your definition of healthy, I'm sure there are 1000 definitions on MDC depending on if you breastfeed or don't, whether you use diapers or don't, we can get into if you eat meat or if you don't, exercise or don't..... it can go on and on.) I won't even type what my definition of natural is here, though I do have a definition. I'd be more impressed with this board if there was a bit more of an inclusive demeaner. It's always hard to interpret someone's tone of voice through type-written words. Many times I find that comments seem to be condescending and a bit self-rightous - though, I assume that they weren't originally meant to come across this way. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for debate and all for playing the devil's advocate, and I feel that we are all women (well most of us who post are anyway), we all have different bodies and different minds and are fully able to have our own opinions and express them.

I just feel that pregnancy and childbirth are different experiences for all women physically, mentally, and emotionally. I embrace what you feel is the way to move through both, and regardless of how I would define your experiece, I didn't live through it and I am just happy that you did what you felt was best at the time to make you feel happy and healthy along with your baby.

I get so tired of exclusiveness and women nit-picking each other!

Is there a need to define any word? Why do we define cesarean section birth? Definitions don't exclude. You can be very concerned about outcomes while still maintaining a definition. They don't contradict one another.


----------



## Quindin (Aug 22, 2003)

I had an induction followed by epidural vaginal birth once. The nurses in the hospital were like: "way to go for having a natural childbirth"
I was like







:
I mean, I had tried having 100% med and intervention free births before: THOSE were natural, not that one


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Quindin* 
I had an induction followed by epidural vaginal birth once. The nurses in the hospital were like: "way to go for having a natural childbirth"
I was like







:
I mean, I had tried having 100% med and intervention free births before: THOSE were natural, not that one









isn't that a scary thing? that there is such a standard in the medical community that anything other than major surgery is called natural childbirth? When I had my son and I opted for an epidural after 30 hours of labor I was told by so many how lucky I was they "let" me continue in labor, and delivery vaginally.

It has been asked and answered a few times on this thread why natural Childbirth even needs to be defined. Maybe we could come up with a list.
1. I like to know what I'm talking about with someone. When they say they had a natural childbirth, I just like to have a picture in my head that is more accurate.
2. A lot of women post here after birth who are seeking advice. The type of birth they had can effect what they are looking for an answer about. Be it legal questions about hospital experiences, latching issues with their babe or any possible birth trauma issues.

I will say it again maybe some will hear this time.

*THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD IS NOT A VALUE STATEMENT, IT IS A STATEMENT ABOUT DEFINITION.*

like I said before, if I use ground Turkey to make burgers for dinner, I don't call them hamburgers, I call them turkey burgers. And saying that does not in any way imply that turkey or beef is in any way inferior to the other. Same goes for the definition of Natural Childbirth.


----------



## JenBuckyfan (Nov 30, 2007)

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a definition (or definitions in general - I'm quite far from being existential), they are what they are. I'm not in the mindset that we shouldn't define anything or allow people to define everthing on their own. the definition I would choose for a natural birth is dead-on with the American Heritage Dictionary definition. In my previous posts, I was addressing my thought that self-created definitions can be made to seem as though they are developed to exclude others. The AHD definition is what it is and I'm totally fine with that. I do have an issue with people in the medical profession not using the proper definition, just the same with people in my profession mis-using words.

As for bringing breastfeeding and homebirthing into the equation (I have read every post...), it was more of a vent from what I've been seeing around MDC and it runs parallel to this topic as some feel that any hospital birth cannot be deemed natural.

Personally, I think there are more important things in the world to debate and/or complain about than the definition of a word that is already defined in a dictionary. I don't disagree with the idea to bring up the annoyance about those not using the proper terminology to describe their experience, I just don't see spending so much time on it. (Not that'd I'd spend my time ranting in a post about it or anything...)


----------



## attachedmamaof3 (Dec 2, 2006)

to the OP, I know this is OT and this is it, I promise!!

I'm not sure about the spending so much time on the debate part (honestly not really sure why there is a debate), but I can tell you the reason why it's important and why these topics seem to be "sticklers" at MDC.

Natural childbirth (as defined above) is the default. It's the go-to birth method. It should be the norm.

Breastfeeding is the default. It's the go-to feeding method. It should be the norm.

Homebirthing, in my opinion, is the default. It's the go-to birth place. It should be the norm.

(all the usual and applicable disclaimers apply)


----------



## heidirk (Oct 19, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *attachedmamaof3* 
to the OP, I know this is OT and this is it, I promise!!

I'm not sure about the spending so much time on the debate part (honestly not really sure why there is a debate), but I can tell you the reason why it's important and why these topics seem to be "sticklers" at MDC.

Natural childbirth (as defined above) is the default. It's the go-to birth method. It should be the norm.

Breastfeeding is the default. It's the go-to feeding method. It should be the norm.

Homebirthing, in my opinion, is the default. It's the go-to birth place. It should be the norm.

(all the usual and applicable disclaimers apply)

I agree. I had an intervention free labor and delivery. Had I not been in a hospital and had an experienced nurse midwife who had delivered bunches of babies in a thirdworld country, and had drugs on hand, I would not have survived much past the first hour after my son's birth.
I like to talk about my birth experience because I want women to know that they have options. That they can trust that their bodies were made with this purpose in mind. I'm not sure where I was going with this...Many would not consider my experience to be a 'natural' birth, but I don't really care. I feel a great sense of personal accomplishment because I birthed my son under my own power. And I think those of us who've done this want that same wondrous feeling for EVERY woman.
My SIL was fed full of stories about the horrors of childbirth and chose a highly managed birth. Yes she delivered an 8lb 14oz baby vaginally, but despite her best effort(and lengthy telepone convo's) she has not been able to successfully breastfeed. I KNOW that this is a consequence of herchoice.
But noone warned her of this consequence before hand.

It makes me angry that the medical profession is so willing to mislead. ANd I pity her for being so willingly misled. These are my FEELINGS.
We definatelyneed definitions, so that women canmake better choices. And we need compliance from the medprofs to make it happen.


----------



## erin_brycesmom (Nov 5, 2005)

I care very little how others define their own births but I still find this discussion quite worthwhile especially here on this forum where we already have a commonality with this being a place for natural family living.

Here is why I think it matters so much - natural childbirth was essentially stolen from women in the US when OBs lobbied congress to outlaw midwifery before women had the right to vote. Then came twilight sleep childbirth and I think we can all agree that childbirth was a lot more natural before that happened. Here we are in 2007, but do we still have a warped view as a society surrounding birth - what is natural and what isn't? I think so. Is now a good time to define or redefine what natural childbirth means even if in loose terms while we all have our interpretations beyond that?

I looked up the definitions on Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com and I found the dates telling:

Quote:


Main Entry:
natural childbirth
Function:
noun
Date:
1933

: a system of managing childbirth in which the mother receives preparatory education in order to remain conscious during and assist in delivery with minimal or no use of drugs or anesthetics
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/natural%20childbirth

and

Quote:

natural childbirth
-noun
childbirth involving little or no use of drugs or anesthesia and usually involving a program in which the mother is psychologically and physically prepared for the birth process.
Compare psychoprophylaxis.

[Origin: 1930-35]
http://dictionary.reference.com/brow...l%20childbirth

So, this was the accepted definition for the term in the 1930s. I find it bizarre that anyone would think you had to take a class to do something "natural" or simply in order to remain conscious. That seems like the opposite of natural. *Disclaimer* - I'm not saying your births were unnatural if you took a class. I felt like I needed to take a class to try to unlearn everything I had been told growing up about childbirth.


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

"in order to remain conscious during and assist in delivery"

Wow, and that was progress.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

Quote:

...natural childbirth was essentially stolen from women in the US when OBs lobbied congress to outlaw midwifery before women had the right to vote.
An act of Congress? Which act was that?

It actually was a bit harder than that. There is the Tenth Amendment which gives the police powers, health, safety and education, to the State. According to Barbara Ehrenreich, author of the booklet, Witches, Midwives & Nurses: A History of Women's Health , published by Feminist Press 1972, the "regular doctors" went from state legislature to state legislature in the 1800s to be sure they were the only practitioners licensed to practice in every state of the Union. Therefore, midwives, homeopaths, osteopaths, herbologists, naturopaths, chiropractors and later acupuncturists were marginalized since allopathic medicine is more lucrative. That, with the establishment of the FDA, clinched their hold on healthcare power in every state of the Union.

Only the VA was a federal health concern until the 1950s with the formation of the HEW, later split into the DOE and HHS.

As for doing all of this before women had the vote, it was a sign of upward class mobility to go to the hospital to have a baby. Women's sufferage, Nineteenth Amendment also shot themselves in the foot by working in tandem with the Temperance Unions to pass the Volstead Law and later the Eighteenth Amendment; this gave the government the power to regulate and outlaw substances. The FDA came into power about the same time. All of these movements came together. Almost all drugs were legal before this. You could virtually go into any drug store and buy morphine, codeine, and cocaine any time, any where...

Women lined up to go to the hospital for childbirth at the turn of the century because they were imitating the upper classes that tended to do that. However, mass hospitalization of laboring women did not fully take hold until after WWII when there were extra hospital beds after all of the veterans left them empty after the war, and there was a baby boom.

When I was born at home early in 1954, and my sister in 1955, 1957,... the neighbors thought my parents were too poor to afford the hospital. That was the attitude, the mindset. It was considered upward mobility into the upper class to go into the hospital and get drugged with amnesiacs and hallucinate during labor.

Now that is progress!









Quote:

but do we still have a warped view as a society surrounding birth
See Doris Haire's booklet, The Cultural Warping of Childbirth; she was a poor woman from OK who happened to marry up. She had her first child in the hospital and was treated very well because she was the wife of a wealthy attorney. She knew this and worked to change labor and delivery for the rest of us; she is a strong advocate of homebirth.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-17111670.html


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Quote:

When I was born at home early in 1954, the neighbors thought my parents were too poor to afford the hospital. That was the attitude. It was considered upward mobility into the upper class to go into the hospital and get drugged with amnesiacs and hallucinate during labor.

Very similar cultural ideas about breastfeeding went along with this, too. My grandmother has told me that when she was a nursing student, the laboring women would be totally freaking out, but _not_ from pain but from the drugs. She said the doctors would joke about it being a good thing they weren't going to remember b/c the mothers would be embarrassed by their behavior.








:


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

Yes.

LLL was started in 1955 in Chicago at a Catholic Parish Picnic with some young mothers sitting around nursing their babies. The conversation was, "wouldn't it be nice if other mothers could get together and share information about breastfeeding as we are", and an international movement was born. Many of those women also pioneered natural childbirth movements. I have had the great pleasure and opportunity to speak with Marianne Tompson and others on the phone and others who were there that day. They are now grandmothers and greatgrandmothers of breastfed, and mostly natural born, when possible, babies.

BTW, the drug used to dry up women when they did not or "could not" breastfeed was DES injections directly into the breasts. And you all wonder where all of the breast cancer comes from.

Also, not breastfeeding and hiring a wetnurse were also a sign of moving up in socio-economic class. Therefore, in my own view, women thought they were doing themselves a favor economically by not breastfeeding and going to the hospital to labor and deliver their babies. If you watch the late 1960s movie, "Rosemary's Baby", in which Satan's child is delivered at home in her apartment, Rosemary delivers at home under protest, moaning and saying that she wanted to go to the hospital because, "everything is so nice and sterile..."

It was an attitude, not founded anywhere in science, of course.


----------



## Nicole R. (Nov 30, 2007)

Personally I'm enjoying this debate. Admittedly I haven't been on MDC very long, but this discussion seems like a worthwhile use of our time. It has raised some points I hadn't considered before. Maybe some posters are a bit nit-picky, but that's the nature of this particular thread. There are lots of other threads out there if you're more of a practical-minded person than a semantics person.









There may be a slight "pissing contest" aspect of it, but really not that bad considering who we all are. Obviously we all care about childbirth or we'd be on more mainstream boards, and any time you feel very passionately about something there's a bit of defensiveness and territoriality. I can accept that, although I would hope we all try to rise above our personal experiences in the service of trying to develop a workable definition of "natural childbirth."

I don't think the oft-quoted modern dictionary definitions are specific enough for us -- they don't even agree with each other. One says "without medical intervention" and other other says "medical intervention is minimized," which means what exactly? That gets back to my posting of a few days ago in which I wondered whether continuous fetal monitoring was an intervention.


----------



## Ahimsa (Apr 7, 2004)

:


----------



## elspethshimon (Nov 23, 2007)

This is one conversation that I had which relates to this debate:

Elspeth: So, Dana had her baby last week? Did she labor long?
Elspeth's friend: Not at all. Something like 8 hours* and then she had a nice natural childbirth.
E: Really? She was unmedicated?
EF: Well no. She had an epidural, but it was still...you know...natural.
E: When I think of natural childbirth, I think it is unmedicated.
EF: Yeah, well she didn't have a c-section, so it's still...natural, I don't know how else to describe it.
E: How about "vaginal"?
EF: Yeah, well I don't really like to say that word.








:

My point? Well, none really. I always use the word unmedicated or medicated now.

*I made this part up. I don't remember what she said about how long it was.


----------



## thefreckledmama (Jun 1, 2007)

I just wanted to chime in with my $.02.

With my first birth, I was young and went with anything my OB did/said. I went into the hospital at 37 weeks with what I later realised were so/so contractions, and probably would have been sent home except my OB was in to visit another one of her patients, and went ahead and broke my water to "move things along." Then she started the pitocin when my contractions died off. I ended up getting an epidural because everyone else I had known had always gotten one, and I saw no reason not to. My OB ended up having to use the vacuum because I couldn't hardly feel to push. My daughter was born vaginally.

With my second, I was induced at 39 weeks, because my OB brought it up, and I wasn't educated enough to question anything my OB recommended. After 13 hours of labor from the start of the pitocin and another epidural, again the vacuum was used, and finally when my OB started talking about forceps, I was able to birth my daughter, again vaginally.

That being said, I believe that a "natural" birth, is when labor begins and progresses without any medical intervention, no drugs are used for pain relief, and the baby is born without any interventions like a vacuum or forceps. I think what I had with both my previous births could and only be classified as vaginal births.

Generally, I think of a hospital birth without pain meds as a "drug-free" birth, but not necessarily "natural".

I'm not looking to offend anyone that might disagree, and I'm not even saying that I'm totally right. I just wanted to share my perspective as someone who HAS had two labors/vaginal births that were riddled with interventions. I think one's ideas about what is or isn't natural or otherwise is very much influenced by cultural practices, as well as family and friends-and I don't think anyone should be ridiculed because of their own beliefs about such, and I don't think anyone should be offended when others disagree with their personal definition either.


----------



## Tsmapoh (Feb 6, 2007)

I think that "physiological childbirth" can be a more useful term than "natural childbirth", since it sidesteps the debate about whether birth pools, the presence of health professionals or whatever are "natural", and instead focuses on the concept of the woman undergoing a physiological process, like digestion or orgasm, to birth the baby.


----------



## readytobedone (Apr 6, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Tsmapoh* 
I think that "physiological childbirth" can be a more useful term than "natural childbirth", since it sidesteps the debate about whether birth pools, the presence of health professionals or whatever are "natural", and instead focuses on the concept of the woman undergoing a physiological process, like digestion or orgasm, to birth the baby.

i don't understand this. it seems to me getting your belly cut open is also physiological; your body and its functions are implicated, if interfered with. unless i don't understand what physiological means.


----------



## erin_brycesmom (Nov 5, 2005)

applejuice, I think it is important to note that OBs lobbied for midwifery to be outlawed and criminalized before women had the right to vote because the majority of women did not want to give birth in the hospital. They did not want to be forced in to be guinea pigs and rightly so - maternal deaths rose sharply after birth was moved into hospital.

You do bring up a good point about many upper class women giving birth in hospitals by choice but this was definitely the minority and doesn't really contradict what I wrote but I'm glad you mentioned it as it is relevant. It is also a chicken v egg thing regarding the influence of the political climate.

I don't think it is accurate to say that women lined up to choose hospital birth at the turn of the century in an attempt to imitate upper class. Many did so because they had little other choice. DeLee and the like decided they needed the lower class to use them in order for OBs to hone their skills on. The following books opened my eyes to the history of childbirth in America:

From Midwives to Medicine: The Birth of American Gynecology

Brought to Bed: Childbearing in America, 1750-1950

Lying In: A History of Childbirth in America

Birth as an American Rite of Passage

Death in Childbirth: An International Study of Maternal Care and Maternal Mortality 1800-1950


----------



## Tsmapoh (Feb 6, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *readytobedone* 
i don't understand this. it seems to me getting your belly cut open is also physiological; your body and its functions are implicated, if interfered with. unless i don't understand what physiological means.

I was thinking of it in the context of:

Quote:

Physiological: characteristic of or appropriate to an organism's healthy or normal functioning <the sodium level was physiological>


----------



## cranberriesfor5 (Nov 28, 2007)

I can see both sides here. I had an unmedicated birth in a hospital. No gown, no IV, no coached pushing, BUT, I had a doctor screaming at me the entire time b/c I would not take an IV, or lay on my back to push. That is unnatural to me.

But, to me I had a baby the way my body would naturally do it, but in an unnatural place.


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Quote:

I don't think it is accurate to say that women lined up to choose hospital birth at the turn of the century in an attempt to imitate upper class. Many did so because they had little other choice.
That's an excellent point. It's helpful for me to remember that the amount of information (and ease of access) available was so very different than today for many of women. And IME, we're right back to having our choices limited today especially considering the options for women who wish to VBAC.


----------

