Please, enlighten me as to what exactly makes a natural, uninterfered with birth a dingerous process because I still completely disagree with this statement
( ... )
I'm not really referring to the more modern times since the discovery of the New World, but genuinely to *most of human history*. It's not evolutionarily significant that a multipara dies in childbirth, so it's not a trait that gets selected out.
It's a well-documented archaeological fact, and for those portions of human history where we have written records, it's well-documented there also.
What makes it dangerous? mainly, blood and infection.
Of course, I don't believe that any creatures were designed, so we may have fundamental philosophical differences to contend with which are insurmountable.
As far as infection in birth goes, the chances of infection are very low as long as no one is sticking things into the vagina. The way the vagina works is the discharge pushes germs out of it. In labor, after the water has broken, the consant flow is continually cleansing the passage. However, when instruments and fingers are inserted for whatever purpose it introduces germs to the enviroment of the vagin and uterus and raises the risk of infection.
Hemorrhaging is a valid concern, especially if the woman has delivered a very large baby or is having a VBAC. However, there are still natural ways to go about handling it...nipple stimulation, uterine massage, herbs and tinctures, and consuming a small portion of the placenta. I had a bit of hemorrhaging after my second birth but it was managed at home. In some cases a transfer is necessary though to aid the mother. The risk of hemorrhaging is increased, though, by birthing in the hospital because of interventions such as pitocin and episiotomies...and of course c-section.
I am sure people will have big issues with the term "dangerous," even if they believe in evolution.
I'm not sure dangerous is the best word, though I do understand what you mean. There is risk in ALL parts of life--we are never without risk, and there are times when risk is elevated. Birth is one of those times, though a natural birth does not have the same risks as a birth with medical interventions--the two sets of risks are entirely different, but risk is there nonetheless. Risk doesn't mean we need to be *scared* or relinquish control; it means we need to be prepared, which I think most of us who go into natural births try to be by reading, researching, listening, learning, etc. My midwife said, "Birth is as safe as life gets." Each of us has to take that to mean whatever it means in our particular context.
I guess what I'm saying is I don't think I'd use the word danger, but I do agree with your central point, especially the fact that for lots of reasons a birthing woman should always be in control of her own body and
I think that acknowledging the danger - or risk, if you prefer - is important. There has never been a time in human history when it was a totally safe procedure, however unmedicalised it was, but it is definitely made much more dangerous by interference without reference to the involved party's information. I am still baffled by how much that happens.
I'll change the word danger to risk in my post; it doesn't make much difference to me, the point is that it's not "safe."
I think people's backs go up at this whole discussion because in order to get away from medicalization we often need to insist on safety--we need to swing to the opposite pole in order to get away from medical models because the medical models have been so powerful and damaging.
But it irks me to no end when people equate 'natural' with 'safe.' Birth is natural. Yes. Women's bodies were designed--through evolution or whatever--to give birth to babies without anyone else's interference. That does not erase the risk. Death and injury and illness are natural--as natural as birth. Risk is everywhere in nature, and it is present during birth as it is present at all other times. That does not mean women are weak or our bodies flawed, though I realize that many will interpret it that way. Unfortunately, to counter medicalization we are practically forced to deny the possibility of risk in order to make the point that medical interventions usually increase rather than lessen that risk.
Comments 10
Reply
I'm not really referring to the more modern times since the discovery of the New World, but genuinely to *most of human history*. It's not evolutionarily significant that a multipara dies in childbirth, so it's not a trait that gets selected out.
It's a well-documented archaeological fact, and for those portions of human history where we have written records, it's well-documented there also.
What makes it dangerous? mainly, blood and infection.
Of course, I don't believe that any creatures were designed, so we may have fundamental philosophical differences to contend with which are insurmountable.
Reply
Hemorrhaging is a valid concern, especially if the woman has delivered a very large baby or is having a VBAC. However, there are still natural ways to go about handling it...nipple stimulation, uterine massage, herbs and tinctures, and consuming a small portion of the placenta. I had a bit of hemorrhaging after my second birth but it was managed at home. In some cases a transfer is necessary though to aid the mother. The risk of hemorrhaging is increased, though, by birthing in the hospital because of interventions such as pitocin and episiotomies...and of course c-section.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I'm not sure dangerous is the best word, though I do understand what you mean. There is risk in ALL parts of life--we are never without risk, and there are times when risk is elevated. Birth is one of those times, though a natural birth does not have the same risks as a birth with medical interventions--the two sets of risks are entirely different, but risk is there nonetheless. Risk doesn't mean we need to be *scared* or relinquish control; it means we need to be prepared, which I think most of us who go into natural births try to be by reading, researching, listening, learning, etc. My midwife said, "Birth is as safe as life gets." Each of us has to take that to mean whatever it means in our particular context.
I guess what I'm saying is I don't think I'd use the word danger, but I do agree with your central point, especially the fact that for lots of reasons a birthing woman should always be in control of her own body and
Reply
I'll change the word danger to risk in my post; it doesn't make much difference to me, the point is that it's not "safe."
Reply
But it irks me to no end when people equate 'natural' with 'safe.' Birth is natural. Yes. Women's bodies were designed--through evolution or whatever--to give birth to babies without anyone else's interference. That does not erase the risk. Death and injury and illness are natural--as natural as birth. Risk is everywhere in nature, and it is present during birth as it is present at all other times. That does not mean women are weak or our bodies flawed, though I realize that many will interpret it that way. Unfortunately, to counter medicalization we are practically forced to deny the possibility of risk in order to make the point that medical interventions usually increase rather than lessen that risk.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment