The reality of childbirth Posted: 07-18-08 23:33pm
We often hear from the anit-choice
so-called "pro-life" contingent that
"pregnancy and childbirth are natural" and
abortion is "unnatural", and that women
should just suck it up, do what nature
intended and give the kid up for adoption
after birthing it...But just because it is
"natural" doesn't mean it's a good thing.
This was an interesting article in The
Guardian recently:
http:/
/www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jul/11/nh
s.health1
It says, "While midwives, and the
government, advocate natural birth, many
female obstetricians opt for a caesarean
when they have their own children. Do they
know something we don't?" Apparently in
the UK around a third of obstetricians
choice a caesarian delivery -- and in the
US it's 50%!
Why? I think it boil down to two main
word: "fecal incontinence".
Quote:
tr>
Vaginal delivery
is a major factor in womb prolapse,
urinary and faecal incontinence. If the
woman's perineum or sphincter is damaged
during childbirth, she will not
necessarily be affected straight after the
birth. But when she hits the menopause and
the pelvic floor muscles begin to atrophy,
problems can arise.
Michelle Thornton, a colorectal surgeon,
sees around 100 women a year suffering
from faecal incontinence. "I'm seeing the
end result of a traumatic birth," she
says. "Very few of my colleagues would opt
for a vaginal delivery and, if any of them
asked me, then it's an elective
C-section."
Some 42% of women show some symptoms of
urinary incontinence, 4%-12% of women
suffer from faecal incontinence. According
to Thornton, "If you have a forceps
delivery the chance of having faecal
incontinence increases to 40% or 45%. If
you have an elective caesarean you
shouldn't have any issues."
Not all experts agree that the risks of a
surgical birth outweigh the benefit of
protecting the pelvic floor. But
calibrating clinical percentages is
different from witnessing the lives of
women with faecal incontinence, says
Thornton. "It's definitely altered the way
I think about childbirth. The thought of
being faecally incontinent - to have a
life like my patients - I don't think I'm
strong enough."
Thornton feels the stigma attached to
incontinence is as bad, if not worse than
the physical symptoms. "Most are too
embarrassed to go out," says Thornton.
"They will not go anywhere unless they
know there is going to be a toilet. They
can't use public transport; they don't go
out for meals . . . Only two of them have
managed to keep a job, the rest don't
because they think they smell all the
time. If they cough or sneeze or laugh
they know they are going to leak."
Among her patients, Thornton has half a
dozen women in their early 30s. They have
"bonding issues with their babies . . . as
well as young partners expecting to resume
a normal sexual relationship. Two of the
couples have split up because of the
traumas." She counsels patients both
psychologically and physically.
"Emotionally it is tough," she says.
"Having those patients with you when they
get upset is tough." When treatments fail,
"it's terrible, because the patient is
absolutely gutted". Her patients know a
permanent colostomy is the only solution.
Imparting this news always makes Thornton
anxious. "It's a terrible feeling. It's
like giving them a cancer diagnosis."
|
aochriss
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 30 Apr 2008 Posts: 447
Thanks: 73
Thanked:121
Posted: 07-19-08 03:04am
Wow, I thought things like this happened
only in third world countries. Thanks for
the info.
so all women should
refuse to give birth and the human race
should be
extinct?
Yeah, that's exactly what was said.
I was waiting for a reply to this one...
|
Darkmoon
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 Dec 2007 Posts: 380 Location: ,
Thanks: 71
Thanked:43
Posted: 08-07-08 02:00am
More like all women should have complete
autonomy to choose whether they want to
endure it and take the risks that come
with it. Our ridiculously overpopulated
species won't be driven into extinction
because some women refuse to incubate and
give birth.
|
Users who thank Darkmoon for this post:
aochrissIngi
Few
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 06 Aug 2008 Posts: 144
Thanks: 2
Thanked:0
Posted: 08-07-08 16:18pm
Darkmoon
wrote:
More like all women should
have complete autonomy to choose whether
they want to endure it and take the risks
that come with it. Our ridiculously
overpopulated species won't be driven into
extinction because some women refuse to
incubate and give
birth.
women have the autonomy
to choose wether or not to become
pregnant. but you want to become some sort
of god that can pick and choose wether or
not the people you become pregnant with
live or die.
|
motherofhighspiritedones
Supporter
Joined: 16 May 2008 Posts: 392 Location: Silverdale, WA United States
Thanks: 77
Thanked:20
Posted: 08-07-08 16:30pm
Yet you also want to play God. You want to
choose who lives. Even if in the end, a
woman or the fetus dies anyway. Or both.
Yet you also want to play
God. You want to choose who lives. Even if
in the end, a woman or the fetus dies
anyway. Or
both.
how? the people killed
with abortions are already alive.
|
Darkmoon
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 Dec 2007 Posts: 380 Location: ,
Thanks: 71
Thanked:43
Posted: 08-07-08 21:12pm
Few
wrote:
Darkmoon
wrote:
More like all women should
have complete autonomy to choose whether
they want to endure it and take the risks
that come with it. Our ridiculously
overpopulated species won't be driven into
extinction because some women refuse to
incubate and give
birth.
women have the autonomy
to choose wether or not to become
pregnant. but you want to become some sort
of god that can pick and choose wether or
not the people you become pregnant with
live or die.
Then men must already be "gods" in your
eyes, since you don't have a problem with
THEM deciding whether or not their bodies
are used by another entity or not.
Why not just admit that you see women as
breeding fodder rather than human beings?
Pig.
|
Few
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 06 Aug 2008 Posts: 144
Thanks: 2
Thanked:0
Posted: 08-07-08 22:03pm
Darkmoon
wrote:
Few
wrote:
Darkmoon
wrote:
More like all women should
have complete autonomy to choose whether
they want to endure it and take the risks
that come with it. Our ridiculously
overpopulated species won't be driven into
extinction because some women refuse to
incubate and give
birth.
women have the autonomy
to choose wether or not to become
pregnant. but you want to become some sort
of god that can pick and choose wether or
not the people you become pregnant with
live or die.
Then men must already be "gods" in your
eyes, since you don't have a problem with
THEM deciding whether or not their bodies
are used by another entity or not.
Why not just admit that you see women as
breeding fodder rather than human beings?
Pig.
how does having the autonomy to choose not
only wether or not to become pregnant but
also who to become pregnant with make
women breeding fodder? and what makes you
think that i don't have a problem with men
being forced to pay child support with the
money they risk their lives to earn while
women have the the option of choosing
which of their children lives or dies?
|
motherofhighspiritedones
Supporter
Joined: 16 May 2008 Posts: 392 Location: Silverdale, WA United States
Thanks: 77
Thanked:20
Posted: 08-08-08 03:34am
News flash: sometimes you have no choice
when you become pregnant. Its called rape.
Or sometimes, the birth control fails. We
are not talking about a planned pregnancy.
And what makes you think a man risks his
life by earning money to pay child
support? Women risk their lives every day
by giving birth.
|
motherofhighspiritedones
Supporter
Joined: 16 May 2008 Posts: 392 Location: Silverdale, WA United States
Thanks: 77
Thanked:20
Posted: 08-08-08 03:40am
Few
wrote:
motherofhighspiritedones
wrote:
Yet you also want to play
God. You want to choose who lives. Even if
in the end, a woman or the fetus dies
anyway. Or
both.
how? the people killed
with abortions are already
alive.
Abortion is legal by law because of one
reason: You are not considered to be
"alive" or a "person" until you are
completely independent from your mother at
the cellular level. So yes, in a way a
z/e/f is "alive", however if you take the
mother out of the picture, the z/e/f will
no longer be "alive". Therefore, until it
can stay alive, completely independent of
its mother's body (minus breastfeeding),
it is not considered alive. This is the
definition BY LAW. You call pro choicers
murderers...yet would you call a mother
who died while pregnant or giving birth a
murderer because she failed at carrying
the fetus or delivering it?
|
Few
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 06 Aug 2008 Posts: 144
Thanks: 2
Thanked:0
Posted: 08-08-08 04:25am
motherofhighspiritedones
wrote:
Few
wrote:
motherofhighspiritedones
wrote:
Yet you also want to play
God. You want to choose who lives. Even if
in the end, a woman or the fetus dies
anyway. Or
both.
how? the people killed
with abortions are already
alive.
Abortion is legal by law because of one
reason: You are not considered to be
"alive" or a "person" until you are
completely independent from your mother at
the cellular level. So yes, in a way a
z/e/f is "alive", however if you take the
mother out of the picture, the z/e/f will
no longer be "alive". Therefore, until it
can stay alive, completely independent of
its mother's body (minus breastfeeding),
it is not considered alive. This is the
definition BY LAW. You call pro choicers
murderers...yet would you call a mother
who died while pregnant or giving birth a
murderer because she failed at carrying
the fetus or delivering
it?
this is not a court
of laws. this is an abortion debate.and
laws are not what creates life. how on
earth are you capable of watching a person
sucking its thumb or kicking its legs and
declare the person dead. dead people don't
suck their thumbs and dead people don't
kick their legs. the only reason unborn
babies can be killed with abortions is
because they are alive.
|
Moo
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 1066 Location: London
Thanks: 21
Thanked:110
Posted: 08-08-08 04:45am
Few
wrote:
this is not a court of
laws. this is an abortion debate.and laws
are not what creates life. how on earth
are you capable of watching a person
sucking its thumb or kicking its legs and
declare the person dead. dead people don't
suck their thumbs and dead people don't
kick their legs. the only reason unborn
babies can be killed with abortions is
because they are
alive.
Yes but the law provides women with the
option of abortiong, it is therefore
relevant.
"People" aren't killed by abortion -
z/e/f's are and there IS a difference.
Please try to not ignore this fact.
|
motherofhighspiritedones
Supporter
Joined: 16 May 2008 Posts: 392 Location: Silverdale, WA United States
Thanks: 77
Thanked:20
Posted: 08-08-08 04:53am
Laws do not create life, you are right.
But they do dictate what the meaning of
life is on a legal note. And I am quite
sick and tired of explaining myself over
and over again. Who ever said I declared
a z/e/f dead? I simply stated that a z/e/f
is not a "being" nor is it a "person".
Here, let me make it simple for you:
a human being; "there was too much for one
person to do"
a human body (usually including the
clothing); "a weapon was hidden on his
person"
a grammatical category used in the
classification of pronouns, possessive
determiners, and verb forms according to
whether they indicate the speaker, the
addressee, or a third party; "stop talking
about yourself in the third person"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
The classical definition of a person is "A
human being regarded as an individual.",
from the Compact Oxford English
Dictionary. In modern usage, the term
"person" is subject to dispute and
re-interpretation based on alternate
definitions. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person
You cannot classify a z/e/f as a human
being regarded as an individual because it
is NOT an individual. That is why
pregnancy is called pregnancy. Pregnancy
(latin graviditas) is the carrying of one
or more offspring, known as a fetus or
embryo, inside the uterus of a female
human. Because, without the mother, the
z/e/f would cease to exist.
dead people don't suck their thumbs and
dead people don't kick their legs.
Live people don't require PHYSICALLY
living off another human, using that
human's own nutrients, using that human's
body as a protective barrier, or a filter
for waste/oxygen transfer.
No one said this was a court of laws. But
this is an abortion debate forum and I am
all for the rights of the mother before
the rights of an unborn being.
how on earth are you capable of watching a
person sucking its thumb or kicking its
legs and declare the person dead.
Most abortions are done before said
"person" can do any of that. And I am able
to do it because I am able to look at the
bigger picture. I am able to see that we
already have enough parentless children in
this world, able to see that there are
enough women in this world who already
have less rights than we deserve. The
right to decide what is best for you and
your future and your INDIVIDUAL
circumstances should be TANTAMOUNT.
|
Reptar
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 389
Thanks: 44
Thanked:13
Posted: 08-08-08 09:09am
Ladies, this person is already on about
men "risking their lives" to pay child
support. Sounds like another one of our
anti-women posters doesn't it?
this is not a court of
laws. this is an abortion debate.and laws
are not what creates life. how on earth
are you capable of watching a person
sucking its thumb or kicking its legs and
declare the person dead. dead people don't
suck their thumbs and dead people don't
kick their legs. the only reason unborn
babies can be killed with abortions is
because they are
alive.
Yes but the law provides women with the
option of abortiong, it is therefore
relevant.
"People" aren't killed by abortion -
z/e/f's are and there IS a difference.
Please try to not ignore this
fact.
z/e/f is a acronym for
zygote embryo and fetus. people are
created and have a continuous lifespan.
some terms are used to describe certain
levels of development of people during
their lifespan. terms such as adult
adolescent embryo fetus are used to
descibe people during their lifespan. you
are using the acronym zef in a blatant
attempt to trick people into thinking that
people are something other than people. in
an effort to promote the discrimination of
those people and the wanton slaughter of
those people with abortions.
|
Moo
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 1066 Location: London
Thanks: 21
Thanked:110
Posted: 08-08-08 09:28am
Few
wrote:
Moo
wrote:
Few
wrote:
this is not a court of
laws. this is an abortion debate.and laws
are not what creates life. how on earth
are you capable of watching a person
sucking its thumb or kicking its legs and
declare the person dead. dead people don't
suck their thumbs and dead people don't
kick their legs. the only reason unborn
babies can be killed with abortions is
because they are
alive.
Yes but the law provides women with the
option of abortiong, it is therefore
relevant.
"People" aren't killed by abortion -
z/e/f's are and there IS a difference.
Please try to not ignore this
fact.
z/e/f is a acronym for
zygote embryo and fetus. people are
created and have a continuous lifespan.
some terms are used to describe certain
levels of development of people during
their lifespan. terms such as adult
adolescent embryo fetus are used to
descibe people during their lifespan. you
are using the acronym zef in a blatant
attempt to trick people into thinking that
people are something other than people. in
an effort to promote the discrimination of
those people and the wanton slaughter of
those people with
abortions.
I do know what z/e/f stannds for lol. I am
aware we, as people, were once all at that
stage, I am aware of basic human biology
(having been educated/having been
pregnant) it's not an attempt to "trick"
people into anything - I couldn't care
less what anyone else does with their own
pregnancies (I'm pro-choice -
I don't promote anything except choice -
it's about the choice ofthe woman to decide
whether aborting or continuing the
pregnancy is best for her).