# Watch your language: "normal" birth



## MsElle07 (Jul 14, 2006)

I read something interesting tonight: it was a UK midwifery site, and on its statistics page, it compared their rates of what they called "normal" birth with the "normal" birth rates of a local hospital.

In North America, we tend to use the term "vaginal" birth more often, and sometimes people are now referring to vaginal as "natural" birth.

I like the term "normal" better than "vaginal". Thoughts?


----------



## Kleine Hexe (Dec 2, 2001)

All I know is that it







: me to no end when people say "natural" birth when talking about a pit induced, epidural, add any other intervention, birth. I'm sorry but it is not "natural" to have an epidural. It is not "natural" to have pitocin. Makes me want to scream!

I've started refering to my homebirth as a "pure" birth. Makes people confused and then roll their eyes.


----------



## clavicula (Apr 10, 2005)

we call it spontaneous birth around here.


----------



## DoomaYula (Aug 22, 2006)

I don't consider anything that happens in a hospital as "natural." However, I've attended a lot of med-free (pain meds, that is) births at the hospital.


----------



## AugustLia23 (Mar 18, 2004)

I think that the majority of the american population has no idea what normal birth is, or think it's a hospital birth with an epidural.


----------



## Clarinet (Nov 3, 2005)

I admit, when I got pregnant 5 1/2 years ago, I thought a "natural" birth was not a c-section. Simply anything other than a c-section. If that baby came out a vagina, it was a natural birth, no matter what happened to help him/her out.

For my own clarity, I say "unmedicated birth." I think natural birth sounds so nice but I do find it irritating that pitocin and epidurals are often thrown in there. Normal birth sounds "reclaiming," like making breastfeeding basic instead of better.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

I use "normal" a lot when talking about spontaneous, unhindered birth. Unfortunately, I think that if people start commonly using it to describe vaginal birth, it will go the way of "natural", in other words, used to describe vaginal birth no matter how it happens. I hope not, because the word then wouldn't be useful to me anymore.


----------



## member234098 (Aug 3, 2002)

In the halls of medicine, a "normal" birth, that is, a birth without medical interventions, is often referred to as an "unremarkable birth".


----------



## bryonyvaughn (May 4, 2007)

As there is no agreed upon central authority defining "natural" and "normal" birth, everyone reads into it what they will, and the many definitions create far more confusion that clarity. I prefer the universally understood terms like vaginal vs c/s birth, induced vs spontaneous labor, medicated vs drug-free labor.

Normal can only be defined in context. In our regional medical center with the NICU, epidurals (at 90%) ARE normal and they think natural births include episiotomies and directed pushing. I think it's a VERY small group of women who comprehend intervention free and natural birth.

Another gripe I have with the word "natural" is how the Madison Avenue types have turned it into a buzz word for good and wholesome while radically devoid of any semblance to how things occur in nature. I'm a homeopath and see "homeopathic" used in the same manner with no connection to the practice of homeopathy or to substances prepared according to the standards of the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States. Because "natural" has become such an emotionally loaded term, women can interpret it as a slam against their maternal fitness. I think that's one reason so many online discussions about natural birth turn into flame wars... women are reacting to inferred judgments about them rather than responding to an argument.

That's my ramble.









~BV


----------



## rmzbm (Jul 8, 2005)

IMO, just walking into a hospital makes it UNnatural.


----------



## wombatclay (Sep 4, 2005)

I tend to use "vaginal" for any delivery where the babe comes out the vagina...regardless of interventions. I use "natural" for a birth in which there were no direct medical interventions regardless of where that birth took place.

I don't know that I'd use "normal" in relation to birth for a couple reasons...first, every birth is different so there really wouldn't be a standard against which "normal" could be set (IMO of course) and second it would automatically create the category of "abnormal" birth. And I think it would be sad to have that sort of mindset or to feel that somehow birth was abnormal, even if a specific birth didn't go as planned or desired.


----------



## Autumn Breeze (Nov 13, 2003)

There are all kinds of births!

What I used to call a "natural" birth I now call NORMAL birth. Indicating that the mother began labor on her own, with out use of western or herbal medicine. Labored unhindered, with out interventions. And with out medicinal pain relief. The use of hydrotherapy and things like counter pressure are completely with in the realm of normal.

If the labor includes any kind of intervention, but ends vaginally, I call it a vaginal birth (and tack on with out pain relief where applicable)

Or a c-section. But with in these 'catagorys' there are many many different kinds of births!


----------



## ABand3 (May 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *miriam* 
In the halls of medicine, a "normal" birth, that is, a birth without medical interventions, is often referred to as an "unremarkable birth".

How sad. It seems that 'normal' birth should be considered even more remarkable than a typical medical birth, if only because it's so rare in a medical setting.


----------



## sunnymw (Feb 28, 2007)

I wanted to have a natural birth more than anything but was manipulated into pitocin because my water had been broken and I wasn't making progress "quickly enough". I was in a hospital because of no midwives and my husband's insistence on not being comfortable with a UC.

Next time we are UCing. But I try to refer to my birth as "without drugs for pain relief" since I considered massage great pain relief


----------



## mamabadger (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wombatclay* 
I tend to use "vaginal" for any delivery where the babe comes out the vagina...regardless of interventions. I use "natural" for a birth in which there were no direct medical interventions regardless of where that birth took place.

That's the way I use the terminology, too. However, although I use "vaginal birth" I'm not entirely happy with it. It implies that there's another kind of birth that's not vaginal. To me, "birth" means the baby comes out the vagina. Otherwise, it's not birth, it's a surgical procedure.


----------



## Robinna (Aug 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamabadger* 
That's the way I use the terminology, too. However, although I use "vaginal birth" I'm not entirely happy with it. It implies that there's another kind of birth that's not vaginal. To me, "birth" means the baby comes out the vagina. Otherwise, it's not birth, it's a surgical procedure.

I feel this way too... although philosophically I'm against the use of the word "normal" because there are too many variables, the one kind of birth that to me is completely NOT normal is c/s. I do think it's still BIRTH... after all my daughter got born. But I did not give birth to her. So my daughter had a birth, but I had nothing to do with it.







:


----------



## Lady Lilya (Jan 27, 2007)

If I remember correctly, in MacBeth, he is told that he will be vanquished by a man who was not born from a woman, or some language like that. Turned out, the guy who stopped him was born by c/s. So, even 500 years ago, people didn't consider a c/s to be birth.


----------



## mumto2 (Apr 30, 2005)

Ummm... if a baby is born, it's a birth.

Sure, a c/s may be a surgical procedure to deliver a baby, but it's still a birth of a child.

So my dd was not born, she was ...... surgicalated???
Gah! Gimme a break!


----------



## felix23 (Nov 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamabadger* 
That's the way I use the terminology, too. However, although I use "vaginal birth" I'm not entirely happy with it. It implies that there's another kind of birth that's not vaginal. To me, "birth" means the baby comes out the vagina. Otherwise, it's not birth, it's a surgical procedure.

Wow







: So, my dd wasn't born? Should we start having surgery days instead of birthdays?! I gave birth, even if it was with the help of a c-section.


----------



## intorainbowz (Aug 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Lady Lilya* 
If I remember correctly, in MacBeth, he is told that he will be vanquished by a man who was not born from a woman, or some language like that. Turned out, the guy who stopped him was born by c/s. *So, even 500 years ago, people didn't consider a c/s to be birth.*

I know some people who had c/s do not call them "births". That is fine for them, as that is their experience they are describing and they are entitled to use whatever language they choose.

For me, and MANY mothers who gave BIRTH by c/s, we do consider it a birth. I find the implication that a c/s is not a birth offensive and dismissive of my life experience. Not to mention what that means for my baby if people don't consider her having been "birthed".

I gave birth. Life came from my body. Period.

So if we are watching our language, please remember that for most women and society as a whole, a c/s is a BIRTH first and formost.


----------



## lyttlewon (Mar 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *YumaDoula* 
I don't consider anything that happens in a hospital as "natural." However, I've attended a lot of med-free (pain meds, that is) births at the hospital.

Yes I say unmedicated, as in pain medication, because my hospital birth was not "natural". I had cervadil to help start my labor, fetal monitoring, pitocin after birth etc. Vaginal birth is a good way I guess to seperate it from C-section but definitly wouldn't call a medical birth natural.


----------



## mamabadger (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *intorainbowz* 
I know some people who had c/s do not call them "births". That is fine for them, as that is their experience they are describing and they are entitled to use whatever language they choose.

For me, and MANY mothers who gave BIRTH by c/s, we do consider it a birth. I find the implication that a c/s is not a birth offensive and dismissive of my life experience. Not to mention what that means for my baby if people don't consider her having been "birthed".

I gave birth. Life came from my body. Period.

So if we are watching our language, please remember that for most women and society as a whole, a c/s is a BIRTH first and formost.

I understand what you're saying, and of course I don't think any differently of DS#2 because he was delivered by CS, and of course we celebrate his birthday, not his "surgery day." I don't mean to dismiss anyone's experience. Still, it seems to me that categorizing Cesarean surgery as "birth" is buying into the medical attitude that there's no difference between the process of birth and a surgical procedure.
I went through labour and birth for my first two children. My third _couldn't_ be born without very likely dying in the process. The surgery was done in order to bypass birth. It probably saved his life, and I'm grateful for it, but the operation wasn't a birth, according to any reasonable definition I can think of. To equate them seems extremely disrepectful of the nature of birth itself.


----------



## felix23 (Nov 7, 2006)

The dictionary that I have defines birth as :The emergence and separation of offspring from the body of the mother. To me that includes a c-section birth. I have no problem saying that my dd's birth was not natural in the least bit, but I still say that I gave birth. My c-section was the point in time where Lilly was seperated from my body, so I don't see why I wouldn't refer to this time as her birth. It was a medical procedure that resulted in Lilly's birth.


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

Sigh. I'm really starting to hate MDC.

Those of you who sit around smugly thinking that an unmedicated birth that took place outside of a hospital was somehow more normal or natural than my unmedicated birth that took place in a hospital, I hope you feel good about yourselves for belittling my birth. Really, I do.

And those of you who actually announce that a c-section isn't a birth at all, well, you really ought to be proud of yourselves. That thought, as unwelcome as it is, will surely be in my mind in the next few weeks as I undergo my non-elective c-section. Can't wait for that warm and fuzzy feeling.

You are creating a closed community here that does not feel welcoming at all. I hope you and your Vastly Superior Births enjoy it.


----------



## Lady Lilya (Jan 27, 2007)

As far as I am concerned, the location is irrelevent.

Also, since linguists consider languages as an evolving thing, and since c/s are commonly referred to as births, I don't think we can really say that they are not births. A different kind of birth, but still a birth.


----------



## witchbaby (Apr 17, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 
Sigh. I'm really starting to hate MDC.

Those of you who sit around smugly thinking that an unmedicated birth that took place outside of a hospital was somehow more normal or natural than my unmedicated birth that took place in a hospital, I hope you feel good about yourselves for belittling my birth. Really, I do.

And those of you who actually announce that a c-section isn't a birth at all, well, you really ought to be proud of yourselves. That thought, as unwelcome as it is, will surely be in my mind in the next few weeks as I undergo my non-elective c-section. Can't wait for that warm and fuzzy feeling.

You are creating a closed community here that does not feel welcoming at all. I hope you and your Vastly Superior Births enjoy it.


----------



## lyttlewon (Mar 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 
Sigh. I'm really starting to hate MDC.

Those of you who sit around smugly thinking that an unmedicated birth that took place outside of a hospital was somehow more normal or natural than my unmedicated birth that took place in a hospital, I hope you feel good about yourselves for belittling my birth. Really, I do.

And those of you who actually announce that a c-section isn't a birth at all, well, you really ought to be proud of yourselves. That thought, as unwelcome as it is, will surely be in my mind in the next few weeks as I undergo my non-elective c-section. Can't wait for that warm and fuzzy feeling.

You are creating a closed community here that does not feel welcoming at all. I hope you and your Vastly Superior Births enjoy it.










The discussion was around the term natural and whether or not a common intervention filled birth could be termed natural. I personally don't think my induction was natural so I wouldn't qualify an induced birth as natural. Most women have some kind of intervention so doesn't that make it different than what nature intended? 95% of my birth was "natural" but I wouldn't qualify it that way. FWIW I don't really think giving birth in a rubber pool in a living room is natural either.

The discussion about c-sections being births is kind of silly. Birth means producing offspring and isn't qualified by how it exits your body. I think that was the whole point of the thread is the term birth by itself doesn't explain the entire process so should it be defined as vaginal vs abdominal birth?


----------



## glendora (Jan 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 
Sigh. I'm really starting to hate MDC.

Those of you who sit around smugly thinking that an unmedicated birth that took place outside of a hospital was somehow more normal or natural than my unmedicated birth that took place in a hospital, I hope you feel good about yourselves for belittling my birth. Really, I do.

And those of you who actually announce that a c-section isn't a birth at all, well, you really ought to be proud of yourselves. That thought, as unwelcome as it is, will surely be in my mind in the next few weeks as I undergo my non-elective c-section. Can't wait for that warm and fuzzy feeling.

You are creating a closed community here that does not feel welcoming at all. I hope you and your Vastly Superior Births enjoy it.










Yeah... that.

Seriously? Anything that happens in a hospital is "unnatural?"

There have been healers in human communities for as long as there humanity has been around...

Good grief...

And, to say that someone delivered via c/s was never BORN? Does anyone else feel like that's erases the basic humanity of person?


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

I will add that my previous pissy post is not entirely due to this thread, but a general response to spending time in this forum. And, probably, because I'm 39 weeks pregnant and generally irritable.

But I do get really tired of people acting like their births are somehow "better". Better choices or better options for their personal circumstances, maybe. But not better births than mine or anybody else's. That's all.


----------



## Artisan (Aug 24, 2002)

Actually, this discussion wasn't about "natural" or whether C-sections are births. It was about using the term "normal" instead of "vaginal".


----------



## lyttlewon (Mar 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Artisan* 
Actually, this discussion wasn't about "natural" or whether C-sections are births. It was about using the term "normal" instead of "vaginal".

The OP was:

Quote:

I read something interesting tonight: it was a UK midwifery site, and on its statistics page, it compared their rates of what they called "normal" birth with the "normal" birth rates of a local hospital.

In North America, we tend to use the term "vaginal" birth more often, and *sometimes people are now referring to vaginal as "natural" birth*.

I like the term "normal" better than "vaginal". Thoughts?


----------



## lyttlewon (Mar 7, 2006)

There are a lot of passionate people here and I get what you are saying.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 
I will add that my previous pissy post is not entirely due to this thread, but a general response to spending time in this forum. And, probably, because I'm 39 weeks pregnant and generally irritable.

But I do get really tired of people acting like their births are somehow "better". Better choices or better options for their personal circumstances, maybe. But not better births than mine or anybody else's. That's all.


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

, chinakat.

I believe that a woman has a right to be proud of growing and bringing life into this world, regardless of how it's done. And if she wants to call her cesarean a birth, more power to her, sisters.

As to the terms normal versus natural, I don't really use the term "normal". I am usually more specific: natural, to me, means without Pit, pain meds., etc. I usually specify that it was a painmed.-free birth if it was a Pit birth without pain relief or whatever. I call cesarean sections "cesarean births". Many women already feel powerless over the outcome of a surgical birth. To further disempower their life-giving abilities does not make me feel fuzzy.

I, too, have repeatedly heard references of "natural" birth, only to find out later that the person merely meant vaginal, not medication and intervention-free. Yes, this is weird to me. Very strange indeed.


----------



## 2bluefish (Apr 27, 2006)

For me it's vaginal birth vs surgical birth. For me, natural childbirth is a "method" of handling labor without medication - if you go 95% of your labor without medication and then take a bit of gas or something in transition, *I'm* not going to say you didn't practice natural childbirth. "Normal" doesn't work for me, because what's normal around here is a surgical birth. Unhindered vs. Managed (but there's lot's of grey).


----------



## angelcat (Feb 23, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamabadger* 
That's the way I use the terminology, too. However, although I use "vaginal birth" I'm not entirely happy with it. It implies that there's another kind of birth that's not vaginal. To me, "birth" means the baby comes out the vagina. Otherwise, it's not birth, it's a surgical procedure.

A c-section IS a birth!!!!!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 
Sigh. I'm really starting to hate MDC.

Those of you who sit around smugly thinking that an unmedicated birth that took place outside of a hospital was somehow more normal or natural than my unmedicated birth that took place in a hospital, I hope you feel good about yourselves for belittling my birth. Really, I do.

And those of you who actually announce that a c-section isn't a birth at all, well, you really ought to be proud of yourselves. That thought, as unwelcome as it is, will surely be in my mind in the next few weeks as I undergo my non-elective c-section. Can't wait for that warm and fuzzy feeling.

You are creating a closed community here that does not feel welcoming at all. I hope you and your Vastly Superior Births enjoy it.










yep, same here. I'm mean 'I'm not pregnant, but I agree with the part about starting to hate MDC.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *candiland* 







, chinakat.

I believe that a woman has a right to be proud of growing and bringing life into this world, regardless of how it's done. And if she wants to call her cesarean a birth, more power to her, sisters.

As to the terms normal versus natural, I don't really use the term "normal". I am usually more specific: natural, to me, means without Pit, pain meds., etc. I usually specify that it was a painmed.-free birth if it was a Pit birth without pain relief or whatever. I call cesarean sections "cesarean births". Many women already feel powerless over the outcome of a surgical birth. To further disempower their life-giving abilities does not make me feel fuzzy.

I, too, have repeatedly heard references of "natural" birth, only to find out later that the person merely meant vaginal, not medication and intervention-free. Yes, this is weird to me. Very strange indeed.

I usually think of natural as drug free, wherever you birth. However, there will always be people (i"m sure I do it, depending who I am talking to) who say natural instead of vaginal, as they don't like to say the word vaginal. If I am talking about it around my father, I"ll say natural instead of vaginal, now that I think about it. He'd jump on me for using the word vaginal in mixed company.

Normal will very for wherever you are talking about.


----------



## Artisan (Aug 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MsElle07* 
I read something interesting tonight: it was a UK midwifery site, and on its statistics page, it compared their rates of what they called "normal" birth with the "normal" birth rates of a local hospital.

I like the term "normal" better than "vaginal". Thoughts?

But this was the majority of the OP. Plus the thread title was about the word NORMAL, not about whether C-births are births or vaginal births are the only way to go, etc.


----------



## MsElle07 (Jul 14, 2006)

Goodness... I haven't been around for a few days, and I come back to this! The intent of my post was to talk about the word "normal birth," as I saw it on a UK midwifery site, as opposed to "vaginal birth" as it is usually referred to in North America. When I said people are now often referring to vaginal as "natural" it was a way to illustrate the differences in language for the same thing: when a baby comes out of the vagina.

It was not meant to disparage people who have babies in hospitals or who have C-sections, and I apologize if people took it as such.

The topic I wanted to discuss was whether we should adopt the term "normal" instead of "vaginal" here in the US/Canada.


----------



## Lady Lilya (Jan 27, 2007)

Quote:

FWIW I don't really think giving birth in a rubber pool in a living room is natural either.
I feel the same way.

-----------

"Normal" is a concept that revolves around what is commonly done. Since drug-augmented labor is most common, I would say that is what is now "normal."


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Okay - this may go over like a lead balloon, but c'est la vie.

For me, c-section doesn't equal "birth"...and I feel that way from _both_ sides. My mom never once suggested that I was anything but _born_. The anniversary of my arrival was always referred to as my _birthday_. But, I have never, ever in my life felt that I was born. I don't feel that I arrived here the way a human being is supposed to. I've always felt a huge disconnect from people in general, for many reasons, and the way I arrived is and was part of that. I feel unnatural. I feel that my life started off _wrongly_. It's not rational, it doesn't make sense - but it's real, and it's had a profound effect on my self-image.

Is that a comfortable feeling, as a woman who is also the mother of three c-section babies? Hell, no - it makes me cringe. The idea that my children may grow up feeling this way, because I couldn't stand up to my doctors (okay - not taking that one with ds1, as they ignored my refusal) makes me literally feel sick to my stomach. I know that many, many people arrive here by c-section and don't feel this way, and I hope that my children are part of that group. But, people can call my arrival a birth until they're blue in the face. I wasn't born - I was extracted. My mom (and the rest of the world), can call it a birth all she wants...doesn't change how I feel about it.

(OTOH, both my brother and sister were also c-sections, and I don't think either of them has ever felt this way.)


----------



## nurturedbirth (Jul 2, 2005)

I don't think I ever use the terms natural or normal in reference to birth. From a statistical perspective, "normal" is whatever falls within a range around the middle of the bell curve. Colloquially, "normal" is that which is usual _and_ most acceptable, and in birth, in our society, those two definitions seem mutually exclusive to me.

"Natural" I don't like because it's vague, as people define it so differently so others probably wouldn't even know for sure what I'm talking about, and because even in it's most commonly-used form, i.e. without pain medication, I've seen a lot of births without pain meds that I do not feel were anything close to the way Nature (evolution, God for those who are inclined to faith, physiology, what have you) has built our bodies to birth.

Basically I think that both words do a poor job of explaining what the speaker (or writer) actually means, so I avoid using them altogether.


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Let's please focus on the OP's intent: to discuss the term vaginal vs. normal. We're not debating a c/s being birth.

Please be sensitive to others and kindly consider the words we post before pressing reply in an effort to avoid further hurt feelings. Thanks so much









Quote:

Mothering.com is the website of natural family living and advocates natural solutions to parenting challenges. We host discussion of nighttime parenting, loving discipline, natural birth, homebirth, successful breastfeeding, alternative and complementary home remedies, informed consent, and many other topics from a natural point of view.

Quote:


MDC serves an online community of parents, families, and parent, child and family advocates considering, learning, practicing, and advocating attachment parenting and natural family living. Our discussions concern the real world of mothering and are first and foremost, for support, information, and community...Through your direct or indirect participation here you agree to make a personal effort to maintain a comfortable and respectful atmosphere for our guests and members.
Any questions or comments, please PM me


----------



## mamabadger (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:

Let's please focus on the OP's intent: to discuss the term vaginal vs. normal. We're not debating a c/s being birth.
With respect, I think it follows unavoidably. If vaginal birth = "normal" birth, what is a CS?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nurturedbirth* 
From a statistical perspective, "normal" is whatever falls within a range around the middle of the bell curve.

That's the very issue that a lot of childbirth writers and activists have tried to deal with, making the distinction between "normal" and "typical." In some communities, this would mean that a CS is a normal birth, because it's the most usual.

I feel that calling vaginal birth "normal birth" is a kind of political statement. It's in direct opposition to doctors who refer to "birth from below" and "birth from above" as if women were made to give birth from two possible exit routes, neither one more natural than the other. I don't think we should buy into that line of thinking, verbally or otherwise. What sense does it make to say things like "birth is a normal physiological function" if the definition of birth includes major surgery? Is a coronary bypass one of the normal functions of the circulatory system?
We need to use terminology that encourages the idea that pregnancy and birth are normal functions of the female body.


----------



## MsElle07 (Jul 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamabadger* 
We need to use terminology that encourages the idea that pregnancy and birth are normal functions of the female body.

YES!

In thinking more about this, it's a bit like the lactivist movement to relanguage how we refer to breastfeeding vs. bottlefeeding. For many years, it was "breast is best." The inference many people made was "but formula is fine." And people are OK with being fine, and an entire generation of babies were fed formula. By referring to breastfeeding as "normal," you by default make formula "sub-par" or "inferior."

I think this thread has touched a nerve: C-section mamas don't want to feel inferior, and by using the term "normal birth" it creates the idea that C-birth is sub-par. Please do not think that by talking about this I am bashing mamas who've had C-sections. I know they are sometimes necessary.

But they are not necessary 30% of the time. I wonder if there were a shift in language, instead of calling it "vaginal" (which people don't even like to say in mixed company) we called it "normal" -- I wonder if it would shift the perception of the general public.


----------



## mumto2 (Apr 30, 2005)

What is with this whole "my experience far surpasses your experience which scarcely deserves to be even called an experience" tone here?

Look throughout the MDC community and you will find parents and families striving to treat their children gently, with dignity and respect. "Celebrate diversity", we say, "We are all unique!" Why does the sme standard not apply when communicating with each other?

My child would not have survived BIRTH without medical intervention. I guess the natural, normal thing to do would have been to allow him to succomb? Not gonna happen. So he was born with assistance, unnaturally alive, not naturally dead.

You see, the thing is that I wanted a child more than a "natural" birth. Nature isn't the be all and end all of everything. It doesn't always work out the way we want. I would rather be paying my medical bills and thanking the staff who undertook these unnatural procedures than visiting my child's grave.

Maybe you've never thought about it like that before. Be gentle and respectful with your opinions because real live people are at the other end of your key strokes.

My child was born.

My son's birth was the most moving experience of my life to that point. It wasn't the way I thought it was going to be, but it was nothing short of amazing.


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

I asked, gently, that we not debate whether or not a c/s is a birth. It's hurtful and offensive to many members of this community, and we don't wish to go any further debating the issue on this thread.


----------



## sophiekat (Oct 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mumto2* 
Ummm... if a baby is born, it's a birth.

Sure, a c/s may be a surgical procedure to deliver a baby, but it's still a birth of a child.

So my dd was not born, she was ...... surgicalated???
Gah! Gimme a break!


Quote:


Originally Posted by *felix23* 
Wow







: So, my dd wasn't born? Should we start having surgery days instead of birthdays?! I gave birth, even if it was with the help of a c-section.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *intorainbowz* 
I know some people who had c/s do not call them "births". That is fine for them, as that is their experience they are describing and they are entitled to use whatever language they choose.

For me, and MANY mothers who gave BIRTH by c/s, we do consider it a birth. I find the implication that a c/s is not a birth offensive and dismissive of my life experience. Not to mention what that means for my baby if people don't consider her having been "birthed".

I gave birth. Life came from my body. Period.

So if we are watching our language, please remember that for most women and society as a whole, a c/s is a BIRTH first and formost.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 
Sigh. I'm really starting to hate MDC.

Those of you who sit around smugly thinking that an unmedicated birth that took place outside of a hospital was somehow more normal or natural than my unmedicated birth that took place in a hospital, I hope you feel good about yourselves for belittling my birth. Really, I do.

And those of you who actually announce that a c-section isn't a birth at all, well, you really ought to be proud of yourselves. That thought, as unwelcome as it is, will surely be in my mind in the next few weeks as I undergo my non-elective c-section. Can't wait for that warm and fuzzy feeling.

You are creating a closed community here that does not feel welcoming at all. I hope you and your Vastly Superior Births enjoy it.












*Quote:*


Originally Posted by *mamabadger* 
With respect, I think it follows unavoidably. If vaginal birth = "normal" birth, what is a CS?


Quote:


Originally Posted by *mumto2* 
What is with this whole "my experience far surpasses your experience which scarcely deserves to be even called an experience" tone here?

Look throughout the MDC community and you will find parents and families striving to treat their children gently, with dignity and respect. "Celebrate diversity", we say, "We are all unique!" Why does the sme standard not apply when communicating with each other?

My child would not have survived BIRTH without medical intervention. I guess the natural, normal thing to do would have been to allow him to succomb? Not gonna happen. So he was born with assistance, unnaturally alive, not naturally dead.

You see, the thing is that I wanted a child more than a "natural" birth. Nature isn't the be all and end all of everything. It doesn't always work out the way we want. I would rather be paying my medical bills and thanking the staff who undertook these unnatural procedures than visiting my child's grave.

Maybe you've never thought about it like that before. Be gentle and respectful with your opinions because real live people are at the other end of your key strokes.

My child was born.

My son's birth was the most moving experience of my life to that point. It wasn't the way I thought it was going to be, but it was nothing short of amazing.

big ditto to all of the above.
i think the very questioning of whether vaginal births should be called "normal" posits an underlying assumption that those of us who've had c/sections face all the time here, that we are somehow "lesser" members/mothers because our vaginas weren't the final exit location of our children. why can't it just be a birth? do we really need to add an offensive label to an already loaded word?


----------



## eviesingleton (Jan 18, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamabadger* 
I understand what you're saying, and of course I don't think any differently of DS#2 because he was delivered by CS, and of course we celebrate his birthday, not his "surgery day." I don't mean to dismiss anyone's experience. Still, it seems to me that categorizing Cesarean surgery as "birth" is buying into the medical attitude that there's no difference between the process of birth and a surgical procedure.
I went through labour and birth for my first two children. My third _couldn't_ be born without very likely dying in the process. The surgery was done in order to bypass birth. It probably saved his life, and I'm grateful for it, but the operation wasn't a birth, according to any reasonable definition I can think of. To equate them seems extremely disrepectful of the nature of birth itself.


I believe that the insistence upon referring to a c-section as a "birth" somewhat subverts medical attitudes. I have never heard a "mainstream" doctor or nurse call a c-section a birth of any kind; in my experience it is MOTHERS who insist upon claiming their birthing experience. To equate THAT with "buying into the medical attitude" is incredibly disrespectful.


----------



## SneakyPie (Jan 13, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamabadger* 
Although I use "vaginal birth" I'm not entirely happy with it. It implies that there's another kind of birth that's not vaginal. To me, "birth" means the baby comes out the vagina. Otherwise, it's not birth, it's a surgical procedure.

My son was born. A surgical procedure was involved, but he was born as surely as anyone is. This kind of "it's not a birth" statement applied to one of his most significant life experiences just chaps me up and down. No one has a right to take the name of that experience from him.


----------



## MsElle07 (Jul 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sophiekat* 
*
*
i think the very questioning of whether vaginal births should be called "normal" posits an underlying assumption that those of us who've had c/sections face all the time here, that we are somehow "lesser" members/mothers because our vaginas weren't the final exit location of our children. why can't it just be a birth? do we really need to add an offensive label to an already loaded word?

For me, it's not about being a lesser person or a lesser mother. I've tried to make it clear that I don't feel that way. I do understand that C-sections are sometimes necessary, and everything should be done to make that experience empowering and wonderful for mothers. I know many mothers thank God C-sections are available.

But we're moving toward a point where 1/3 of women in North America give birth surgically. I think it's sad that so many women are viewing major surgery as the "normal" way to give birth. The stats are clear that mothers and babies are put at greater risk when babies are delivered via C-section. In some cases, the benefit outweighs that risk. In many, it does not. There are also many mothers here who view their C-sections as forced, unnecessary, scarring procedures.

Surgery is not a normal birth. Nature clearly intended another way, and I think it's time women reclaim that.

Please read my previous disclaimers before getting up in arms.


----------



## Lady Lilya (Jan 27, 2007)

A baby born by c/s is still a baby, and is no different from a child who was born vaginally. Can you tell by looking? I can't.

I think it is a little silly to put ALL the weight on the last bit of the baby-creation experience. What makes a woman a mother is the WHOLE DEAL, including the whole pregnancy, every bit of birth, and all the years of caring for and raising the child. Why put so much emphasis on those few minutes?

Understandably, we want to talk about c/s with an eye to reducing unnecessary ones, because they are very traumatic and better avoided if possible. But the reason to avoid a c/s is not because "if i have a c/s i won't technically have born this baby and therefore I am not officially a mother." It is ridiculous to look at it that way when being a mother means so much more than just that little bit of the experience.


----------



## MsElle07 (Jul 14, 2006)

Leigh, can I ask what prompted your response? Was it something earlier in the thread? Because my last posts have very clearly stated that this is not about what makes someone a mother or whether or not C-sections are births. The mod has also asked that we get back to the topic at hand, which is about the word "normal" instead of "vaginal."


----------



## AuntG (Apr 2, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MsElle07* 
Leigh, can I ask what prompted your response? Was it something earlier in the thread? Because my last posts have very clearly stated that this is not about what makes someone a mother or whether or not C-sections are births. The mod has also asked that we get back to the topic at hand, which is about the word "normal" instead of "vaginal."

Ok, I'll give it a try.

"Natural" would identify more with the process of nature, while "normal" is identified by cultural standards.

Normal is a very subjective word, as the last three pages have clearly indicated. In the 1950's it was "normal" to be knocked unconscious while the father stood outside in the hallway waiting to see a nurse carrying his baby away to the nursery.
Today, women are asked to lie on their backs to labor and deliver, and I find that not only very uncomfortable (painful, let's be honest! I did this so I know!) but definitely not natural. Yet, it's considered normal.
I could insert here many examples of what a certain culture or society collectively finds normal that would generate myriad differing, emotional opinions.

SO -- It seems to me that with one-third to nearly half of all births resulting from c-section, there is a need to differentiate between the two methods. So, in that respect, I prefer the term "vaginal" to describe a birth during which the baby was born through the vaginal canal.

"Normal" is far too subjective. "Natural" has no clear definition any more. But since I've arrived at this, I would gently offer up that "natural" could mean unaided. Then again, unaided by what? Perhaps that demands another thread altogether.


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

Personally, if we are going to make "political" statements by using specific nomenclature to describe birth... I'd like to start with making the word VAGINAL a word we can all use proudly and comfortably in conversation... no matter the type of birth one has had.


----------



## Lady Lilya (Jan 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MsElle07* 
Leigh, can I ask what prompted your response? Was it something earlier in the thread? Because my last posts have very clearly stated that this is not about what makes someone a mother or whether or not C-sections are births. The mod has also asked that we get back to the topic at hand, which is about the word "normal" instead of "vaginal."

I just don't like the idea of anyone feeling like they are less of a mother because they had a c/s. It is still such a wonderful and miraculous thing to have made a baby. It was really saddening me that there are so many women whose mothering experience is somehow contaminated by negative feelings about that one aspect.

I know the mod said to stop talking about it, but there were several posts after that where some were still expressing feeling bad about having a c/s, and I guess I was trying to be comforting. Sorry if i contributed to the off-topicness.

I just want every mother to have the opportunity to feel pure and uninterrupted joy about their baby!


----------



## sophiekat (Oct 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 
Personally, if we are going to make "political" statements by using specific nomenclature to describe birth... I'd like to start with making the word VAGINAL a word we can all use proudly and comfortably in conversation... no matter the type of birth one has had.

AMEN sister!


----------



## MsElle07 (Jul 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 
Personally, if we are going to make "political" statements by using specific nomenclature to describe birth... I'd like to start with making the word VAGINAL a word we can all use proudly and comfortably in conversation... no matter the type of birth one has had.

I hear you. I don't agree that "normal" is a political term, but do think we should work to make "vaginal" a term people can use more freely.


----------



## mamabadger (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:

I just want every mother to have the opportunity to feel pure and uninterrupted joy about their baby!
Everyone does, I'm sure, but a lot of women are delighted with their babies _and_ mad as hell about the way their birth was handled. There's no contradiction there. You aren't a bad mother just because you're furious about the huge episiotomy you didn't want but got anyway, or whatever.
Why does it keep coming back to "Are you saying I'm a *bad mother* because I gave birth such-and-such a way?" If we can't try to improve maternity care without all women taking it as a personal attack on their mothering skills, we might as well give up now.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AuntG* 
Normal is a very subjective word
(SKIP)
I could insert here many examples of what a certain culture or society collectively finds normal that would generate myriad differing, emotional opinions.

I think "normal" could be used in a different way here, without referring to cultural practices. We're talking about a physical function - the way human beings reproduce. Everyone understands when we talk about normal kidney function, as opposed to being on a dialysis machine. That's because we accept that people have kidneys, they have a normal function, and we know when they are or are not doing what they're supposed to. There's no competition involved, and no moral judgements.
I think we don't talk about childbirth the same way simply because we, as a society, don't really believe that birth is normal.


----------



## lyttlewon (Mar 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nurturedbirth* 
I don't think I ever use the terms natural or normal in reference to birth. From a statistical perspective, "normal" is whatever falls within a range around the middle of the bell curve. Colloquially, "normal" is that which is usual _and_ most acceptable, and in birth, in our society, those two definitions seem mutually exclusive to me.

Agreed and it doesn't really have anything to do with vaginal either because technically from a birthing perspective c-sections could fall into the middle of the bell curve. Unless you seperate them out from vaginal births. If you do that then why make any distinction of normal at all from the word vaginal since vaginal would be assumed.

Quote:

"Natural" I don't like because it's vague, as people define it so differently so others probably wouldn't even know for sure what I'm talking about, and because even in it's most commonly-used form, i.e. without pain medication, I've seen a lot of births without pain meds that I do not feel were anything close to the way Nature (evolution, God for those who are inclined to faith, physiology, what have you) has built our bodies to birth.

Basically I think that both words do a poor job of explaining what the speaker (or writer) actually means, so I avoid using them altogether.


----------



## lyttlewon (Mar 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 
Personally, if we are going to make "political" statements by using specific nomenclature to describe birth... I'd like to start with making the word VAGINAL a word we can all use proudly and comfortably in conversation... no matter the type of birth one has had.









It is amazing the number of nick names we have for a body part because we feel uncomfortable calling it a vagina.


----------



## MsElle07 (Jul 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamabadger* 
Everyone does, I'm sure, but a lot of women are delighted with their babies _and_ mad as hell about the way their birth was handled. There's no contradiction there. You aren't a bad mother just because you're furious about the huge episiotomy you didn't want but got anyway, or whatever.
Why does it keep coming back to "Are you saying I'm a *bad mother* because I gave birth such-and-such a way?" If we can't try to improve maternity care without all women taking it as a personal attack on their mothering skills, we might as well give up now.

I think "normal" could be used in a different way here, without referring to cultural practices. We're talking about a physical function - the way human beings reproduce. Everyone understands when we talk about normal kidney function, as opposed to being on a dialysis machine. That's because we accept that people have kidneys, they have a normal function, and we know when they are or are not doing what they're supposed to. There's no competition involved, and no moral judgements.
I think we don't talk about childbirth the same way simply because we, as a society, don't really believe that birth is normal.

Yes. It is not a normal physiologic function to have surgery to give birth. Within Normal Limits (WNL) is an often used term in medicine and midwifery. There's nothing political about it.


----------



## lyttlewon (Mar 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MsElle07* 
Yes. It is not a normal physiologic function to have surgery to give birth. Within Normal Limits (WNL) is an often used term in medicine and midwifery. There's nothing political about it.

Can you clarify again then why you want to say normal instead of vaginal? If everyone "gets" vaginal birth is physiologically normal why use normal instead of vaginal? You mentioned breast feeding and we don't call it normal feeding we still make the breast distinction.


----------



## Autumn Breeze (Nov 13, 2003)

I like using "normal" over "vaginal" because even vaginal births can be medicated, or assisted in one way or another. By using "normal" I include that to be an unmedicated, intervention free, VAGINAL birth.

And please allow me to say that I have never thought less of any womans motherhood because of the way her child came into this world. Be it medicated vaginal birth, or c-section, even adoption. A mother is a mother no matter how she births her child. A friend of mine just adopted a 10 month old little girl from China. Her labor and birth were about 4 years in the making. She's still very much a mother.


----------



## MsElle07 (Jul 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lyttlewon* 
Can you clarify again then why you want to say normal instead of vaginal? If everyone "gets" vaginal birth is physiologically normal why use normal instead of vaginal?

I'm not necessarily advocating it, just sort of hashing it out in my mind.









I do think it's, in part, because of the declining vaginal birth rate. If we say that vaginal birth is normal birth, it kind of sets vaginal birth as the standard, KWIM? I think right now we're moving toward surgical birth being more and more accepted and standardized, and it's largely detrimental to moms and babies. (Barring those that are medically necessary, of course.)


----------



## 2bluefish (Apr 27, 2006)

Personally, I think it would be very hard to find too many births that would fit the description - unmedicated, intervention free, vaginal birth. There are so many grey areas. For some if you walked in the hospital that would *be* an intervention. For some monitoring of any kind is an intervention. By that definition - even many UCs would be ruled out of "normal birth". So I kind of find it fruitless to try to define it myself.

I also hate the kind of status that gets put on these various labels. I would prefer families to try to get the best experience possible for mom and baby, rather than try to have a birth that fits within a label.


----------



## SneakyPie (Jan 13, 2002)

Even before my med-free homebirth plans were interrupted and replaced by a surgical exit (and he & I both experienced a LOT of the birth process up to that point), I always liked using the terms "vaginal birth" and "surgical birth." If I had to differentiate at all.

I dislike using the term "normal" birth just because people get upset wondering if they get to be included in it. My experience is that people [email protected] well know that there are differences among births, whether those differences are in location, amount/expectation of meds, exit point of baby, etc. Using a term like "normal" to basically nitpick at people and remind them that you used drugs! you went to a hospital! you are now not allowed to classify your experience as normal because we have to use you to educate the ignorant how to do it right! -- that smacks of the same worst parts of lactivism, those mechanical-bull ads that imply you'll kill your baby if you don't nurse. It's all part of a trend, I think - it starts out as enthusiasm, leads to an evangelical zeal, and sometimes unfortunately ends up as actual emotional violence. Unintended at the start, of course, but there nonetheless.

So I'm a fan of "vaginal" and "surgical," leave the "normal" out of it. Not just for the sake of mothers, but for the sake of the children who had no say in how they were born. They don't deserve to be negatively labeled.


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lyttlewon* 
If everyone "gets" vaginal birth is physiologically normal why use normal instead of vaginal? You mentioned breast feeding and we don't call it normal feeding we still make the breast distinction.

I love this!


----------



## Clarinet (Nov 3, 2005)

One definition of normal is "serving to establish a standard" and in biological terms, "free <snip the irrelevant> from experimental therapy or manipulation" or "of natural occurrence." I think the word "normal" applied to an unmedicated vaginal birth would be entirely accurate.

Just as in the breastfeeding fora here, breastfeeding is normal and formula feeding isn't but formula feeding by necessity is mostly sympathized with, why can't the same be said about birthing? Unmedicated vaginal births are normal. Medical interventions aren't but when they are done by necessity, we should rejoice in the outcome.

I think "popular" would be a more accurate word for epidurals, *elective* c-sections and inductions. But not so much "normal."


----------



## angelcat (Feb 23, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eviesingleton* 
I believe that the insistence upon referring to a c-section as a "birth" somewhat subverts medical attitudes. I have never heard a "mainstream" doctor or nurse call a c-section a birth of any kind; in my experience it is MOTHERS who insist upon claiming their birthing experience. To equate THAT with "buying into the medical attitude" is incredibly disrespectful.


Why shouldn't the others insist on reclaiming it. I've actually never noticed how dr.'s refer to it, but it is sad if they odn't refer to it as a birth.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 
Personally, if we are going to make "political" statements by using specific nomenclature to describe birth... I'd like to start with making the word VAGINAL a word we can all use proudly and comfortably in conversation... no matter the type of birth one has had.

I agree.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lyttlewon* 
Can you clarify again then why you want to say normal instead of vaginal? If everyone "gets" vaginal birth is physiologically normal why use normal instead of vaginal? You mentioned breast feeding and we don't call it normal feeding we still make the breast distinction.

I still thinking vaginal & surgical or c-section birth should be the terms. See. some of you think normal is unmedicated. For me, at my local hospital, if they say they had a normal birth, that would be no epi available, even if they wanted it, and some other durgs available, but they dont' do squat. Oh, and a vaginal birth. I've always assume that actually, unless otherwise stated.

At the hospital my s-i-l gave birth at, I'd assume it was a vaginal birth with an epi. (And I"d be sooo jealous. i very much wanted one. )


----------



## mamabadger (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lyttlewon* 
Can you clarify again then why you want to say normal instead of vaginal? If everyone "gets" vaginal birth is physiologically normal why use normal instead of vaginal? You mentioned breast feeding and we don't call it normal feeding we still make the breast distinction.

Because to specify "vaginal" birth is to imply that there's another kind. We don't do that for breastfeeding, because (so far) nobody says things like "There are two ways to breastfeed: with the breasts that grow on your chest, and with the plastic breasts you fill with formula."

Quote:

It is amazing the number of nick names we have for a body part because we feel uncomfortable calling it a vagina.
Not to get picky, but I can't help but note the irony here. What we call the "real" name, vagina, is actually a Latin medical term. We don't have a word for that body part in English, except for obscenities. The lst time there was a plain English word for it was in Chaucer's time, when it was commonly called the quim. That wasn't a slang word or profanity, it was just the name, like an elbow is called an elbow. Today, you can't refer to female parts without using either medical terminology, or dirty words - an unfortunate choice.


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamabadger* 
Because to specify "vaginal" birth is to imply that there's another kind. We don't do that for breastfeeding, because (so far) nobody says things like "There are two ways to breastfeed: with the breasts that grow on your chest, and with the plastic breasts you fill with formuls."

Huh?

I think it goes much more like this:

There are two ways to feed an infant, breast feeding and bottle feeding.

There are two ways to birth a baby, vaginally and surgically.

And why *wouldn't* we specify that there is another kind, as you say, of birth? Clearly, there IS more than one way babies are born today. You might not like that fact, but it's the truth.

And "vaginal" (vs. "surgical") seems more accurate than "normal" (vs. "abnormal?") for the reasons quoted above -- what exactly *is* normal, and how do we define it? Why use a word like "normal" that requires additional explanation when everybody immediately knows what "vaginal" and "surgical" mean?

The word "normal" is simply too loaded.


----------



## intorainbowz (Aug 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamabadger* 
Because to specify "vaginal" birth is to imply that there's another kind. We don't do that for breastfeeding, because (so far) nobody says things like "There are two ways to breastfeed: with the breasts that grow on your chest, and with the plastic breasts you fill with formuls."

Mamabadger....

If you had any idea how incredibly hurtful your words are....

What would you call the birth a baby born by c/s?

She was not hatched.
She was not removed.

She had a birth. Pure and simple. She was born.

I don't understand the need to push one form of birth over the other to the point of saying one form is not a birth. How incredibly inhuman and dehumanizing to people born that way. So are people born by c/s not human?

I'll have a live and healthy baby anyday over forcing a vaginal birth.


----------



## lyttlewon (Mar 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamabadger* 
Not to get picky, but I can't help but note the irony here. What we call the "real" name, vagina, is actually a Latin medical term. We don't have a word for that body part in English, except for obscenities. The lst time there was a plain English word for it was in Chaucer's time, when it was commonly called the quim. That wasn't a slang word or profanity, it was just the name, like an elbow is called an elbow. Today, you can't refer to female parts without using either medical terminology, or dirty words - an unfortunate choice.

I don't understand the significicance of the fact that we use a latin word for vagina instead of an english one. Post partum is latin and people don't use silly words to say it. We don't call it who-ha recovery or pee-pee care.


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lyttlewon* 
I don't understand the significicance of the fact that we use a latin word for vagina instead of an english one. Post partum is latin and people don't use silly words to say it. We don't call it who-ha recovery or pee-pee care.

LOL!!!!!


----------



## mamabadger (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *intorainbowz* 
Mamabadger....

If you had any idea how incredibly hurtful your words are....

What would you call the birth of a baby born by c/s?

She was not hatched.
She was not removed.

I'm sorry you're hurt, but I honestly don't see why the words are hurtful. I had a C/S for one of my children, so anything I say applies to myself.
To answer your question literally, I would say she _was_ removed. That's the whole point of Cesarean surgery, isn't it? Why is it a bad thing to say so?

Maybe I'm crazy, or maybe I'm just not getting the idea across. Let me try one more example.
Recently, a medical guide online was pointed out to me. The doctor who wrote it gave a list of the natural functions of various body parts.
When he got to the vagina, he listed things like "outlet for childbirth" "outlet for menstrual fluids" and so on.
Last of all, he listed "provides access for medical examinations."
That's bizarre, but typical of the medical attitude to female organs. Providing access for pelvic exams is not one of the "natural functions" of the vagina!
Note - that doesn't mean that pelvic exams are wrong, or that women who get them are bad, or that they don't serve a valuable purpose.

In the same way, birth is a normal bodily function. It's something human beings do naturally, like digesting food.
A C/S, on the other hand, is a complicated surgical procedure. They're very different things.
One of the reasons why there are so very many surgical births is that real birth is not recognized as a normal process. Not by the medical community, and apparently not by a lot of women, either.


----------



## ericswifey27 (Feb 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *intorainbowz* 
Mamabadger....

If you had any idea how incredibly hurtful your words are....

What would you call the birth a baby born by c/s?

She was not hatched.
She was not removed.

She had a birth. Pure and simple. She was born.

I don't understand the need to push one form of birth over the other to the point of saying one form is not a birth. How incredibly inhuman and dehumanizing to people born that way. So are people born by c/s not human?

I'll have a live and healthy baby anyday over forcing a vaginal birth.

Personally, I don't view my csection as a birth either. And I don't consider it dehumanizing to the people "born that way" like my son either. In our case, we were robbed of our birth. That is what is so dehumanizing. I understand your csection was neccessary and that it was a birth. Sadly, my "birth" was not one, and I will not change how I word it because someone else doesn't like it. And of course I'll take a live and healthy baby any day over forcing a vaginal birth that would end in death or poor health, but I also won't take an unneccessary csection forced on me and sing about its virtues and what a special birth it was, when it's not true for me.

Thankfully I have a healthy baby, but that's no thanks to my csection, it is in spite of it.

So I guess I'm not getting why it has to be one way or the other. A csection can be a birth or a surgery, or both. It's whatever you decide it is for yourself.


----------



## eviesingleton (Jan 18, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *angelcat* 
Why shouldn't the others insist on reclaiming it. I've actually never noticed how dr.'s refer to it, but it is sad if they odn't refer to it as a birth.


I never said they shouldn't. In fact, I believe that when they insist on calling it a "birth" rather than a cesarian or a section, they are subverting the way that the medical industrial complext generally refers to it.

I believe that doctors and nurses do consider it a birth, but generally the term "birth" is left out of the terminology. I think it does some good to bring it back, not for the sake of equating c-sections with vaginal births, but to remind the mother that it is still a birth.

I think you can have both, a movement that actively tries to reduce uncessary c-sections and one that, when a c-section take must take place, does not diminish the fact of the "birthing" that is happening.


----------



## Zan&Zav (Nov 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *intorainbowz* 
Mamabadger....

If you had any idea how incredibly hurtful your words are....

What would you call the birth a baby born by c/s?

She was not hatched.
She was not removed.

She had a birth. Pure and simple. She was born.

I don't understand the need to push one form of birth over the other to the point of saying one form is not a birth. How incredibly inhuman and dehumanizing to people born that way. So are people born by c/s not human?

I'll have a live and healthy baby anyday over forcing a vaginal birth.


Thank you.







I was sitting here ready to cry thinking that anyone would dehumanize my son that way when he had to fight to live and only survived because he was *BORN* by c section.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *intorainbowz* 
Mamabadger....

If you had any idea how incredibly hurtful your words are....

What would you call the birth a baby born by c/s?

She was not hatched.
She was not removed.

She had a birth. Pure and simple. She was born.

I wasn't. I was extracted...and anybody who tries to push the label "birth" on how I was removed from my mother is totally denying _my_ reality. I wasn't born - I was extracted.

Quote:

So are people born by c/s not human?
Of course I'm human. So are my children. I'm still a mother. That doesn't make my arrival on this planet a birth.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Zan&Zav* 
Thank you.







I was sitting here ready to cry thinking that anyone would dehumanize my son that way...

May I respectfully ask how you plan to handle it if your son doesn't feel that he was born? Will you accuse him of dehumanizing _himself_?

Nobody pushed a label on me. Nobody ever referred to my arrival here as not being a birth. That's _my_ feeling, as a c-section baby. That's _my_ reality with respect to how I joined my family. It has diddly-squat to do with what the doctors, my mom, or anybody else have to say about it.


----------



## eviesingleton (Jan 18, 2007)

How can anyone say that they were not born?

That's just silly. Yes, I said, SILLY
I think it's silly to reinterpret how you came into the world as something less than a birth because it does not fit your contemporary preceptions about what a birth to be is SILLY








:


----------



## eviesingleton (Jan 18, 2007)

According to the OED:

1. The bearing of offspring. Viewed as an act of the mother: a. Bringing forth, giving birth. Now chiefly in '(several young) at a birth.'

2. fig. Of things: Origin, origination, commencement of existence, beginning.

3. a. The product of bearing, that which is born; offspring, child; young (of animals).

So, go ahead and deny that you were birthed just because it doesn't fit your ideals.








:


----------



## charmander (Dec 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kleine Hexe* 
All I know is that it







: me to no end when people say "natural" birth when talking about a pit induced, epidural, add any other intervention, birth. I'm sorry but it is not "natural" to have an epidural. It is not "natural" to have pitocin. Makes me want to scream!

I've started refering to my homebirth as a "pure" birth. Makes people confused and then roll their eyes.









Me too. I once had a co-worker who had all of the above, but she didn't claim that it was a natural birth. She and said the only thing "natural" about her birth was that she didn't wear makeup.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eviesingleton* 
So, go ahead and deny that you were birthed just because it doesn't fit your ideals.








:

What ideals? I'd never heard of the natural birth community until I was 36, and pregnant with my third child. I knew nothing about the "too many c-sections" controversy until well after I'd had my second one. All I ever knew about it was that my first section was a violation like nothing I'd ever experienced before, and that I never wanted it to happen again.

I've felt that I wasn't born since I was about 6-7 years old, when I found out "where babies come from" and how I actually arrived. My mom was very careful (as am I) not to use any loaded terminology - this was my emotional reaction at a very early age. As soon as I grasped the idea that someone cut my mom open and pulled me out through her belly, I felt _different_ on a fundamental level - that was not how it was supposed to be. This has nothing to do with any ideals I may have about childbirth.


----------



## eviesingleton (Jan 18, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *charmander* 
Me too. I once had a co-worker who had all of the above, but she didn't claim that it was a natural birth. She and said the only thing "natural" about her birth was that she didn't wear makeup.

So, if I don't have time to wash my make up off right before my river-birth, it's not natural ???









Oh, I didn't mean to offend anyone with my completely inappropriate use of the word silly before. But I will not take it back. And if it earns me a warning...so be it. I am just shocked that anyone would go so far as to deny a basic reality of language.

Indeed, I think it is far more productive to attend to the details of why a birth is less than ideal, as a way to change things, than to refuse it entirely.

EVERYONE is born. If you want to change birth culture, it does no good to divide the world into people who had a birth and those who did not.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eviesingleton* 
How can anyone say that they were not born?

That's just silly. Yes, I said, SILLY
I think it's silly to reinterpret how you came into the world as something less than a birth because it does not fit your contemporary preceptions about what a birth to be is SILLY








:

I think it's beyond "silly" to decide that my visceral reaction to the knowledge of what was done to my mother to get me out of her body has something to do with "reinterpreting" in light of my "contemporary perceptions". I didn't reinterpret anything - this is how I've _always_ felt about it. The idea that I was pulled out of an incision in my mother's abdomen makes me feel ill when I let myself think about it.


----------



## eviesingleton (Jan 18, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
What ideals? I'd never heard of the natural birth community until I was 36, and pregnant with my third child. I knew nothing about the "too many c-sections" controversy until well after I'd had my second one. All I ever knew about it was that my first section was a violation like nothing I'd ever experienced before, and that I never wanted it to happen again.

I've felt that I wasn't born since I was about 6-7 years old, when I found out "where babies come from" and how I actually arrived. My mom was very careful (as am I) not to use any loaded terminology - this was my emotional reaction at a very early age. As soon as I grasped the idea that someone cut my mom open and pulled me out through her belly, I felt _different_ on a fundamental level - that was not how it was supposed to be. This has nothing to do with any ideals I may have about childbirth.


Ok. I am still not convinced that you didn't have a birth.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eviesingleton* 
So, if I don't have time to wash my make up off right before my river-birth, it's not natural ???









Oh, I didn't mean to offend anyone with my completely inappropriate use of the word silly before. But I will not take it back. And if it earns me a warning...so be it. I am just shocked that anyone would go so far as to deny a basic reality of language.

Why? You're trying to deny a basic reality of my existence.

Quote:

Indeed, I think it is far more productive to attend to the details of why a birth is less than ideal, as a way to change things, than to refuse it entirely.

EVERYONE is born. If you want to change birth culture, it does no good to divide the world into people who had a birth and those who did not.
When I say I wasn't born, I'm not trying to change anything. I'm simply expressing my feelings about it. I've never told my mom I feel this way - I thought it would hurt her too much. Actually, I never told anybody about it until very recently...maybe I knew people would call it "silly", instead of trying to understand that my mom's surgery 39 years ago cost me a whole lot on an emotional level.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eviesingleton* 
Ok. I am still not convinced that you didn't have a birth.

So what? What does _your_ opinion (or the opinion of my mom, the OB, anybody else in this thread or someone at a hospital or DONA or ACOG or whatever) have to do with my reality? Nothing - nothing at all.

If it makes people feel better to assert that I was born, then they're welcome to do so. It doesn't change how I feel about it or how I see it.


----------



## eviesingleton (Jan 18, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
I think it's beyond "silly" to decide that my visceral reaction to the knowledge of what was done to my mother to get me out of her body has something to do with "reinterpreting" in light of my "contemporary perceptions". I didn't reinterpret anything - this is how I've _always_ felt about it. The idea that I was pulled out of an incision in my mother's abdomen makes me feel ill when I let myself think about it.

Ok. I am still not convinced that you didn't have a birth.

And I think it's entirely possible to have those feelings without denying the basic meaning of the word, "birth."


----------



## eviesingleton (Jan 18, 2007)

I am not going to discuss this anymore. I am not interested in making my ideals/opinion about the integrity of the English language a battle ground for someone else's birth (or lack of birth) experience.

That doesn't help anyone.


----------



## ericswifey27 (Feb 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eviesingleton* 
How can anyone say that they were not born?

That's just silly. Yes, I said, SILLY
I think it's silly to reinterpret how you came into the world as something less than a birth because it does not fit your contemporary preceptions about what a birth to be is SILLY








:


Quote:


Originally Posted by *eviesingleton* 

So, go ahead and deny that you were birthed just because it doesn't fit your ideals.








:

You can believe anything you want about what birth means to you, but I am confident it is against User Agreement to belittle someone this way


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Okay - let's try this:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eviesingleton* 
According to the OED:

1. The bearing of offspring. Viewed as an act of the mother: a. Bringing forth, giving birth. Now chiefly in '(several young) at a birth.'

Not an act of my mother, nor me. I arrived, as did both my siblings and all three of my children, by an act of a surgeon.

Quote:

2. fig. Of things: Origin, origination, commencement of existence, beginning.
I don't see where this applies to children, honestly. My commencement of existence was when the sperm met the egg, not when the surgeon pulled me out.

Quote:

3. a. The product of bearing, that which is born; offspring, child; young (of animals).
This one I'm having trouble following - were you posting definitions of "born" or "birth" or what? I don't see where "offspring" or "child" = "birth" or "born". And, I'm not "that which is born" (although if we're talking dehumanizing, the word "that" in the definition certainly goes a ways in that direction!).


----------



## felix23 (Nov 7, 2006)

When talking about birth, I don't think normal or natural would work, the words have too many definitions for different people. For me a natural birth is one that is not induced and there is no pain meds. I can't figure out why some people insist that this cannot happen in the hospital. My mom had 5 children all in the hospital and all with no meds or inductions. She always says that she had a natural birth. What makes her birth any less natural than someone who gave birth at a birth center in a whirlpool tub. Last time I checked there were not whirlpools growing in nature.







So it is really hard to define the word natural. The same goes for normal. Normal to some means everything but a c-section, and normal to others means giving birth at home unassisted. I think people will just have to say exactly what sort of birth they had. That will be the only way to avoid confusion about what type of birth a person had.


----------



## mamabadger (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
Okay - let's try this:

Not an act of my mother, nor me. I arrived, as did both my siblings and all three of my children, by an act of a surgeon.

That does emphasize the difference, or one of the differences.
Let's take "birth" as an active verb, which it also is.
Woman A is in the process of pushing a baby out in the traditional manner.
Woman B is unconscious on an operating table while a doctor cuts open her abdomen with a scalpel.
Are both women doing the same thing? Aren't they at least different enough to require separate names?


----------



## angelcat (Feb 23, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eviesingleton* 
I never said they shouldn't. In fact, I believe that when they insist on calling it a "birth" rather than a cesarian or a section, they are subverting the way that the medical industrial complext generally refers to it.

I believe that doctors and nurses do consider it a birth, but generally the term "birth" is left out of the terminology. I think it does some good to bring it back, not for the sake of equating c-sections with vaginal births, but to remind the mother that it is still a birth.

I think you can have both, a movement that actively tries to reduce uncessary c-sections and one that, when a c-section take must take place, does not diminish the fact of the "birthing" that is happening.


Sorry, I compleletely misread your post. Turbs out we're actually on the same side!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eviesingleton* 
How can anyone say that they were not born?

That's just silly. Yes, I said, SILLY
I think it's silly to reinterpret how you came into the world as something less than a birth because it does not fit your contemporary preceptions about what a birth to be is SILLY








:

I agree.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamabadger* 
That does emphasize the difference, or one of the differences.
Let's take "birth" as an active verb, which it also is.
Woman A is in the process of pushing a baby out in the traditional manner.
Woman B is unconscious on an operating table while a doctor cuts open her abdomen with a scalpel.
Are both women doing the same thing? Aren't they at least different enough to require separate names?

What about women who were unconscious or basically when the had a vaginal birth? is that not a birth? What about my mom? Was it not a birth when the nurse had to push on her stomach, and the dr. had to use forceps, because she was too tired to push? (That was in the '70's, and they still used demerol past early labour then)

And for the record, I was very much conscious during my c-section BIRTH!!!


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 

When I say I wasn't born, I'm not trying to change anything. I'm simply expressing my feelings about it. I've never told my mom I feel this way - I thought it would hurt her too much. Actually, I never told anybody about it until very recently...maybe I knew people would call it "silly", instead of trying to understand that my mom's surgery 39 years ago cost me a whole lot on an emotional level.

I mean this in the nicest, most supportive, trying to be helpful and not judgemental way... I think you might really benefit from talking to a counselor or somebody about this.

I don't think your feelings are "silly" at all -- but they clearly cause you some angst. You might want to try to work that out in therapy, it could help.

<hugs>


----------



## JanetF (Oct 31, 2004)

I use "spontaneous physiological birth" to describe a birth which progresses to the timetable of the mother and baby and does not encompass interventions. Define "interventions" as you will, but I am trying to imply birth that happens under it's own steam without what I define as interventions.

I find it interesting that a lot of the hospital produced literature I read describes "caesarean birth" but "vaginal delivery". Those could be interpreted a few ways.

I wish we could talk about these issues without women going on the defensive. I've had a caesarean too and I just don't take offence when we talk about the negatives involved. I am not my caesarean. I am a woman who got caught in a system and had surgery at the end of it. It doesn't make me bad, or mean that anything about my child or my parenting is lacking - it's a fact. I had surgery. We really need to look to ourselves when something provokes a strong reaction in us. I don't think of my caesarean as ME birthing my child but you know what? I don't mind if other women feel differently. That's their business, and I'm sure they don't mind how I feel about my experience since it has absolutely no impact on their lives whatsoever. I really fail to see how a discussion of generalities around how each of us defines something can be a personal attack on anyone's birth. It's just not!


----------



## Lady Lilya (Jan 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *felix23* 
When talking about birth, I don't think normal or natural would work, the words have too many definitions for different people. For me a natural birth is one that is not induced and there is no pain meds. I can't figure out why some people insist that this cannot happen in the hospital. My mom had 5 children all in the hospital and all with no meds or inductions. She always says that she had a natural birth. What makes her birth any less natural than someone who gave birth at a birth center in a whirlpool tub. Last time I checked there were not whirlpools growing in nature.







So it is really hard to define the word natural. The same goes for normal. Normal to some means everything but a c-section, and normal to others means giving birth at home unassisted. I think people will just have to say exactly what sort of birth they had. That will be the only way to avoid confusion about what type of birth a person had.

My grandmother, in the 1940s, had 3 births in a hospital with no induction, no pain meds, no epi. Just entirely on her own while the OB observed and encouraged her.

My mother, in the 1980s, had 2 births were she could not find a single OB that would allow her to not have an epi. She also was required to have an IV. In the case of my sister, there was also AROM (she went in at 11 for a check-up, and their machine declared her in labor, and they wouldn't let her go home....they got tired of waiting, even though she insisted that it would happen at 8-9pm, and broke her waters....she was furious). Not a bit of this was necessary. I wouldn't call this birth natural, but it could have been a lot worse as neither of us was exposed to any drugs during the births.

I am sure that in 2007 there are many hospitals where you can have a natural birth, completely free from intervention (i don't consider passive observation/monitoring to be intervention). But, there are also many hospitals where you would go in EXPECTING to have a natural birth only to have interventions forced upon you. If you go to a hospital, you are likely to have to FIGHT for your natural birth, at a time when you are least suited to fighting.

So, i wouldn't say that the location dictates how natural the birth is. I would say that some locations are more suited to facilitating a natural birth.

--------

Someone mentioned something about the ways the medical communities refer to births. I was under the impression they refer to them as "deliveries", which de-emphasizes the woman's role in it, and puts all the focus on the efforts of the OB. I like the terminology that the woman "births" the baby and the MW "catches" the baby. Doctors seem to think they are "delivering," but if you compare to other uses of the word "deliver," such as a package from UPS, the doctors' function would be analogous to unpacking, regardless of whether they unpack via the vagina or abdomen. The use of the word "deliver" seems to imply that the woman is the box, or other packaging. I don't like this.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *angelcat*
What about women who were unconscious or basically when the had a vaginal birth? is that not a birth? What about my mom? Was it not a birth when the nurse had to push on her stomach, and the dr. had to use forceps, because she was too tired to push? (That was in the '70's, and they still used demerol past early labour then)

And for the record, I was very much conscious during my c-section BIRTH!!!

If we are going to get technical, I would say that it is not a matter of consciousness, but a matter of how much the woman's body has to do with the outcome vs how much the doctor's actions has to do with it.

When women were drugged to unconsciousness and the baby came out vaginally, it was the woman's body -- her uterus and other muscles -- that did the work.

When a woman has a c/s, the docs bypass all the woman's natural functions, and she can't have much role in the outcome.

Perhaps we need a sliding scale with 100% mother control on one side, and 100% doc control on the other?







We could make it all numerical and take out the semantics entirely!

---------

I have been trying to compare these ideas, conceptually, to other ideas. Imagine I cook a dinner for hours, but then something comes up that prevents me from attending to it at the last minute and I need my husband to transfer it from the pot to the serving bowl and put the bowl on the table. I still did the cooking, but not the serving. That doesn't in any way take away from the fact that a nice dinner now exists. It doesn't make the dinner any less good. But, it is disappointing to me that I couldn't take my project all the way to completion by myself.

I wonder if this is conceptually analogous to birth, or if it is too much of a stretch.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 
I mean this in the nicest, most supportive, trying to be helpful and not judgemental way... I think you might really benefit from talking to a counselor or somebody about this.

I don't think your feelings are "silly" at all -- but they clearly cause you some angst. You might want to try to work that out in therapy, it could help.

<hugs>

I agree that her feelings are not silly, but I don't know if it is a matter for therapy. Most people have something in their lives that didn't go the way they feel it should have, and have strong feelings about that, but it doesn't necessarily mean they aren't dealing with it effectively or that they should try to put it behind them. Holding on to our experiences can be very valuable in motivating us and contributing to our future choices.

For example, I had a very traumatic experience about 8 years ago being separated from my husband for several months. It still brings me to tears almost every time I think about it. As a result, I make choices now such as giving a very high priority to maintaining our relationship because I know being together is very important to me. It also affects how I interact with others, like being more sympathetic to them when they are separated from loved ones, and discouraging them from making choices that will lead them to experience this pain.


----------



## Zan&Zav (Nov 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
May I respectfully ask how you plan to handle it if your son doesn't feel that he was born? Will you accuse him of dehumanizing _himself_?

Nobody pushed a label on me. Nobody ever referred to my arrival here as not being a birth. That's _my_ feeling, as a c-section baby. That's _my_ reality with respect to how I joined my family. It has diddly-squat to do with what the doctors, my mom, or anybody else have to say about it.

I hope that my son will realize that a birth is a birth however it has to happen. His was not a planned csection, it was necessary for both of us to live. But I certainly don't feel he was extracted, he was born in a way that was necessary, while not optimal. He was born from my body. I still birthed him, but with the necessary assistance of others.


----------



## lyttlewon (Mar 7, 2006)

Wow Lady Lilya that was an excellent post!


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 
I mean this in the nicest, most supportive, trying to be helpful and not judgemental way... I think you might really benefit from talking to a counselor or somebody about this.

I don't think your feelings are "silly" at all -- but they clearly cause you some angst. You might want to try to work that out in therapy, it could help.

Thanks for your concern, but I'd rather not talk to a counselor about _anything_. If I were willing to do that, I'd probably be looking for one to talk to about my own c-sections, as they cause me a lot more angst than the one that brought about my arrival here.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Lady Lilya* 
I agree that her feelings are not silly, but I don't know if it is a matter for therapy. Most people have something in their lives that didn't go the way they feel it should have, and have strong feelings about that, but it doesn't necessarily mean they aren't dealing with it effectively or that they should try to put it behind them. Holding on to our experiences can be very valuable in motivating us and contributing to our future choices.

Thank you. If I were to see a counselor about everything in my life that causes me "angst", I wouldn't have a whole lot of time left to _live_. I'd be in there about the sexual abuse, the c-sections, the emotionally abusive marriage, the divorce (even with his behavior, it was hard to walk away from 15 years of my life), the miscarriages, the infertility - even the high school bullying...I probably wouldn't even get around to my feelings about my "delivery" until I was in my third or fourth year! Every one of these things affects the way I live my life every single day...and a lot of that pain in my past makes my current life _better_, not worse.


----------



## Lady Lilya (Jan 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
Thank you. If I were to see a counselor about everything in my life that causes me "angst", I wouldn't have a whole lot of time left to _live_. I'd be in there about the sexual abuse, the c-sections, the emotionally abusive marriage, the divorce (even with his behavior, it was hard to walk away from 15 years of my life), the miscarriages, the infertility - even the high school bullying...I probably wouldn't even get around to my feelings about my "delivery" until I was in my third or fourth year! Every one of these things affects the way I live my life every single day...and a lot of that pain in my past makes my current life _better_, not worse.

I think it is very important to our emotional health not to dwell too much in a victim attitude, but let our unfortunate circumstances empower us instead.


----------



## e_mom_e (Nov 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamabadger* 
That's the way I use the terminology, too. However, although I use "vaginal birth" I'm not entirely happy with it. It implies that there's another kind of birth that's not vaginal. To me, "birth" means the baby comes out the vagina. Otherwise, it's not birth, it's a surgical procedure.


maybe you should get out your websters....









"American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary - Cite This Source

birth (bûrth)
n.

1. The emergence and separation of offspring from the body of the mother.
2. The act or process of bearing young; parturition.
3. The circumstances or conditions relating to this event, as its time or location.
4. The set of characteristics or circumstances received from one's ancestors; inheritance.
5. Origin; extraction."

I don't see the word vagina in that

and for the RECORD, I had an UNMEDICATED, doula attended, husband attented/coached, NATURAL vaginal delivery...IN A HOSPITAL!









So does that mean he was not NATURAL as another mama said just walking into a hospital means it's un natural...jeez I mean you are going to put down a mama that actually had a natural birth but because it was in a place that you don't APPROVE of, it's suddenly not natural.








:

good grief, do you people have anything better to argue about...why not just SUPPORT people who have at least made the step to doing AS MUCH as they can to not have medical interventions or a c-section instead of nitpicking every stinking thing that isn't to your STANDARDS of a "natural", or "normal" or "unmedicated" birth. or whatever the heck you want to call it.

A baby that was conceived and came from the mom whether or not it was removed surgically or came through the birthing canal is BY DEFINITION BORN!


----------



## soulyluna (Nov 18, 2006)

seriously. so many times i have told my birth story, and i say that it was a relatively fast, normal birth, and then they ask, "did you have a c-section or an epidural?"








:


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

I have asked everyone to please focus on the OP's original post and to avoid discussing the "born" issue. I believe I asked twice.

Quote:

I asked, gently, that we not debate whether or not a c/s is a birth. It's hurtful and offensive to many members of this community, and we don't wish to go any further debating the issue on this thread.
At this point, I'm closing this thread to new posts to avoid further issue at this point in time. Please PM me if there are any questions. Thanks


----------

