Medical Questions > Debate Forums > Abortion Debate Forum

The reality of childbirth (Page 1)

Must Read

What happens during labor? What do contractions feel like? And how do I know that labor has begun? Read on to learn about birthing basics....

TOPICS DOCTOR QUESTIONS

oopoopoop Extremely eHealthy

July 18th, 2008

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/nhs.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:

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

replied July 19th, 2008

Extremely eHealthy

Wow, I thought things like this happened only in third world countries. Thanks for the info.

More interesting facts:

"Childbirth in humans is an extremely difficult and dangerous process that is a result of human bipedalism and encephalization."
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node /277

Few

replied August 7th, 2008

Experienced User

aochriss wrote:

so all women should refuse to give birth and the human race should be extinct?

aochriss

replied August 7th, 2008

Extremely eHealthy

Few wrote:

aochriss wrote:

so all women should refuse to give birth and the human race should be extinct?

Yeah, that's exactly what was said. Rolling Eyes

Sydney123456

replied August 7th, 2008

Experienced User

aochriss wrote:

Few wrote:

aochriss wrote:

so all women should refuse to give birth and the human race should be extinct?

Yeah, that's exactly what was said. Rolling Eyes

I was waiting for a reply to this one... headstand

Darkmoon

replied August 7th, 2008

Active User, very eHealthy

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: aochriss Mabel

Few

replied August 7th, 2008

Experienced User

Darkmoon wrote:

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

replied August 7th, 2008

Moderator

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.

Sydney123456

replied August 7th, 2008

Experienced User

Few- do you support the death penalty?

Few

replied August 7th, 2008

Experienced User

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.

Darkmoon

replied August 7th, 2008

Active User, very eHealthy

Few wrote:

Darkmoon wrote:

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

replied August 7th, 2008

Experienced User

Darkmoon wrote:

Few wrote:

Darkmoon wrote:

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.

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

replied August 8th, 2008

Moderator

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

replied August 8th, 2008

Moderator

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

replied August 8th, 2008

Experienced User

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.

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

replied August 8th, 2008

Extremely eHealthy

Few wrote:

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

replied August 8th, 2008

Moderator

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

replied August 8th, 2008

Experienced User

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?

Users who thank Reptar for this post: Mabel

Few

replied August 8th, 2008

Experienced User

Moo wrote:

Few wrote:

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

replied August 8th, 2008

Extremely eHealthy

Few wrote:

Moo wrote:

Few wrote:

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.

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).

But a zygote/embryo/fetus is NOT a person.

12 3 4 >>


	Tags: Childbirth, cancer diagnosis, vaginal delivery, abortion debate, surgical birth, obstetricians, all experts, benefit of, treatments, traumatic