C-Section Being An Option.

EmoKidOnWheels:

if my mum didnt have a c section, i wouldnt be writing this right now, so im all for it.

But did she have it for a medical reason, or just because she was lazy/selfish and didn't want to go to the trouble of birthing you naturally?
The debate isn't whether C-section should be banned, it's about whether perfectly healthy, capable women should be allowed to demand major surgery when they don't need it.
It's like, what would happen if people were able to say, 'Well, I know my lungs/heart/liver is/are perfectly healthy, but I just want brand-new ones,' - should they be allowed to have a transplant for no reason other than that they want to? No, that's ridiculous, right?
I just think that unless there's a serious risk to mother or baby, or complications involved (eg the baby is too big to pass through the canal, which happens sometimes) that women should not be allowed to opt for a C-section.
Elective C-sections place a lot of strain on already understaffed maternity wards - what happens if one woman, who's already decided she wants a C-section, goes into labour twenty minutes before another woman, who happens to have the cord twisted around her baby's neck, and there's only one team of surgeons available in the town at the time? The other woman and her baby could die because the first woman just didn't want to spend an extra couple of hours puffing and panting. It's selfish.
As I've said before, I've already drawn up my birth plan and I'm adamant that unless there's a serious problem, I'll be going through the pain of natural childbirth (with the aid of drugs, of course, I have no aversion to those, as it doesn't take a qualified surgeon away from needier women).
Childbirth freaking hurts, duh. If women don't think they can handle it, go adopt or something.

I think it's a mother's body and this is just another form of Roe vs. Wade.

Cigarettes And Suicide:

It's like, what would happen if people were able to say, 'Well, I know my lungs/heart/liver is/are perfectly healthy, but I just want brand-new ones,' - should they be allowed to have a transplant for no reason other than that they want to? No, that's ridiculous, right?

But that's only ridiculous because it's hard enough for people who really need organs to get them. C-Sections require only a surgeon (and some nurses), drugs, and some not-so-special medical equipment.

You make a good point about the only-one-team-of surgeons bit. So I suppose hospitals should be allowed to deny women elective C-Sections if they're short-staffed. But if the surgeons have the time and the mothers have the money, they should be allowed elective C-Sections. It's like cosmetic surgery - some people want it for non-medical reasons, and it's a bit stupid and pointless, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed it.

Cigarettes And Suicide:

It's like, what would happen if people were able to say, 'Well, I know my lungs/heart/liver is/are perfectly healthy, but I just want brand-new ones,' - should they be allowed to have a transplant for no reason other than that they want to? No, that's ridiculous, right?

i'm not menaing to conflict with you at all, but i don't see how that is even a comparison in this case.

i don't really see the big deal with it. child birth is painful, and since i have never been in that situation and experienced that level of pain, i suppose i can't really argue with it. if woman want to do it and it's not going to hamr the baby, then i don't see what teh big deal is. however, since i don't have much insight on the entire situation and all of the medical precautions, my opinion could easily be pursuaded.

Venom Dried Bones.:

i'm not menaing to conflict with you at all, but i don't see how that is even a comparison in this case.

i don't really see the big deal with it. child birth is painful, and since i have never been in that situation and experienced that level of pain, i suppose i can't really argue with it. if woman want to do it and it's not going to hamr the baby, then i don't see what teh big deal is. however, since i don't have much insight on the entire situation and all of the medical precautions, my opinion could easily be pursuaded.

I admit that it's a bad analogy, but I'm just trying to illustrate my point in a way that might be understood by the uneducated observer (and by uneducated, I mean someone who's never been pregnant, or been close to anybody during a pregnancy - because you can guarantee that my close friends are all near-experts on pregnancy and childbirthing theories because of my endless rambling on the matter).
What I'm trying to say, is that women have birthed perfectly healthy babies for centuries upon centuries, and yes, a few of them have died from complications, but those are the cases in which C-section should be an option. I just feel that people in general these days are far too lazy, self-absorbed, and just 'can't be bothered' to do things the way they're meant to be done.
Those who haven't experienced may not realise it, but C-section seriously isn't as easy as 'cut, deliver, sew, go home tomorrow' at all - it's major surgery with all the complications and risks of any other major surgery. I just don't see a point to it unless it actually needs to be done.
Yes, it's a wonderful thing, for those who really need it, but I don't see why some lazy-ass bitch should be able to demand one just because she doesn't want to wear herself out by pushing. She probably regrets it six weeks later when she has stitches out the wazoo and can't get out of bed or comfortably hold and feed her newborn.
Yeah, uhh, childbirth sucks ass as far as pain goes - any woman who's got a kid can tell you this. But with natural childbirth, the pain is over a couple of hours after the baby's born, and you can get up, walk around, go home the next day if all is well. With a C-section, sure, they knock you out with a bunch of drugs and cut you open, you don't feel a damn thing, until the next day. And that pain goes far deeper and lasts for weeks. The thing is, women in this day and age are well aware of how painful it is, what kind of drugs they can get for pain relief, and, if they really can't bear the thought of going through with it, they can stay on the goddamn Pill and not have to go through it at all. It's not like they don't have a choice in having kids the way our ancestors had it (eg nobody knew that sex begot babies, and women could be punished for denying their husbands sex).
I know what I'll be choosing in August, unless, of course, there's a medical risk to the baby, in which case I'll be happy to take a C-section. But damned if I'm not going to avoid it at all costs.

And Resurgam, thanks for agreeing with me on the under-staffing problem. I live in a smallish town that's severely in need of qualified medical staff (I've only met my obstetrician once because he's so busy being one of the only two in a town of 40,000 people, and it seems that literally half the women in town are breeding right now), and unfortunately they can't refuse the demands of a raving, hormonal cow, so if it came down to a situation like the one I mentioned, the fact is that either somebody would die, or the surgeon and nurses would spend the entire labours running back and forth trying to take care of two people at once (probably with disastrous results).
I just can't bear to think how I'd feel if, say, the cord was around my baby's neck and squeezing, and a nurse said to me, 'Oh, well, uhh you'll just have to start praying because Dr Bush is at the other end of the ward with another woman,' or how immensely guilty I would feel if I demanded a C-section and then found out later that some other woman's baby was still-born because nobody could operate on her in time.

The thing is, cosmetic surgery is booked for a certain day at a certain time, with ample hours allowed for conplications or last-minute emergencies. And, if something happens, the next patient can be contacted and asked to reschedule as the surgeon won't be available for their appointed time. Children don't arrive when it's convenient - women go into labour prematurely, two weeks after their due date, in the middle of the night, while they're at a restaurant, in the middle of a cyclone... there's no ability to predict or schedule around them, and for that reason I disagree with your statement.
Although I do agree with the unnecessity and vanity of it, but like transplants, cosmetic surgery can't really be compared to childbirth.

I just don't see why, if you're capable of squeezing it out, and there's nothing wrong with either you or the baby, you can't just suck it up, get an epidural, and go through with it. Why would anybody in their right mind want to go to the trouble of a C-section without a valid reason?

Wow. I don't think anybody can really argue with you at this point. Very good debate. I'm sold.

Cigarettes And Suicide:

And Resurgam, thanks for agreeing with me on the under-staffing problem. I live in a smallish town that's severely in need of qualified medical staff (I've only met my obstetrician once because he's so busy being one of the only two in a town of 40,000 people, and it seems that literally half the women in town are breeding right now), and unfortunately they can't refuse the demands of a raving, hormonal cow, so if it came down to a situation like the one I mentioned, the fact is that either somebody would die, or the surgeon and nurses would spend the entire labours running back and forth trying to take care of two people at once (probably with disastrous results).
I just can't bear to think how I'd feel if, say, the cord was around my baby's neck and squeezing, and a nurse said to me, 'Oh, well, uhh you'll just have to start praying because Dr Bush is at the other end of the ward with another woman,' or how immensely guilty I would feel if I demanded a C-section and then found out later that some other woman's baby was still-born because nobody could operate on her in time.

The thing is, cosmetic surgery is booked for a certain day at a certain time, with ample hours allowed for conplications or last-minute emergencies. And, if something happens, the next patient can be contacted and asked to reschedule as the surgeon won't be available for their appointed time. Children don't arrive when it's convenient - women go into labour prematurely, two weeks after their due date, in the middle of the night, while they're at a restaurant, in the middle of a cyclone... there's no ability to predict or schedule around them, and for that reason I disagree with your statement.
Although I do agree with the unnecessity and vanity of it, but like transplants, cosmetic surgery can't really be compared to childbirth.

I just don't see why, if you're capable of squeezing it out, and there's nothing wrong with either you or the baby, you can't just suck it up, get an epidural, and go through with it. Why would anybody in their right mind want to go to the trouble of a C-section without a valid reason?

I do think natural birth is a better option than C-Section (obviously except with medical problems). My mom had me natural birth (totally natural birth, actually; I came before my parents could go to the hospital), and she's told me that even without drugs, she much preferred it to the C-Sections she had to have with my older brother and sister (I'm not quite sure what was up with my sister, but I know with my brother it was placenta praevia and they had to; my mom wanted natural). I do know all about the scars and the pain and not being able to hold the baby in your lap for a while because it hurts too much - that's why if I ever have a child, I'd choose natural birth as well. And I do think you're correct that there are people who don't realize that, which is why I would hope hospitals would at least educate people fully in C-Sections vs. natural birth before having them decide.

I think I'm biased on this because of where I live - I'm in the most densely populated county in the most densely populated state in the US. If you could find a hospital around here with only one surgical team to perform C-Sections, there'd be another hospital within fifteen minutes who'd be able to cut you up. No, I don't really agree with frivolous C-Sections, but I'd hardly stop it when it doesn't really put anyone but the woman who elected to have it done at risk.

That's why I don't think banning unnecessary C-Sections altogether is the answer. If that's what someone really wants, they should be allowed it. But, in situations like yours, with a short-staffed hospital and high-demand, I do absolutely think it should be legal to deny women elective C-Sections. It would just be unfair to have a ban carry over in places like here, where it's not a problem and surgeons are more than happy to cut into if you've got the money.

I don't think that the option of a C-section should be taken away. Many women are scared out of their minds that doctors will be all up in their business, the overall pain of childbirth, and the risk of complications during natural birth.
that's it.

Blah-dee-Blah:

Many women are scared out of their minds that doctors will be all up in their business, the overall pain of childbirth, and the risk of complications during natural birth.
that's it.

By 'all up in their business', I'm assuming you mean cervical examinations to check how far dilated they are? Sad fact: women have to get used to being poked and probed up there once they're sexually active or turn 18 because they have to get Pap smears every two years. Another sad fact: pregnant women are subjected to such examinations quite regularly throughout their pregnancy, and therefore they should, if not be used to it, then at least be able to suck it up and deal with an exam at the crucial moments because it's important to not push before your body's ready.
Of course going into labour is scary, the first time. Once you've had one baby, it's just another day at the office. But I don't agree with women demanding a C-section for their first baby if it's not necessary as it weakens the uterus and could make carrying another baby to full term dangerous or impossible, and could result in the mother never being able to give birth naturally due to the weak spots, they could rupture with pushing. I don't really believe in birthing videos being screened at antenatal classes, I know the process is designed to show women what happens and therefore eliminate the fear of the unkown, but it mostly achieves the opposite effect - ignorance is bliss, and showing a pregnant woman what birthing actually looks like can put the fear of God into them and make them want to turn back the clock and never become pregnant!

Women have such extensive antenatal care these days, with regular blood and urine testing, ultrasounds, and a bajillion other check-ups and tests done during the pregnancy, that unless a risk has aleady been found, there's virtually no chance of anything going wrong on the day. As in, if you and the baby have been healthy and developing normally for nine months, you're almost guaranteed to be good to go, and if a risk has been documented, of course C-section will be an option, depending on the complication. During the labour, the midwives/obstetrician do regular checks to ensure everything is proceeding normally, so if a risk does develop, they know about it and can work around it, by suggesting surgery or fixing the problem in other ways. I don't see why women don't just place their trust in their obstetrician - they've birthed more babies than the pregnant woman has had hot dinners, they know their job and the problems involved and how to work around them.
Fear is natural in such an event, but our generation is far too mollycoddled and needs to simply suck it up, be brave, or not get knocked up in the first place if they're that scared. Educate yourselves, read the textbooks, Google parenting sites, there's so much info out there to put your mind at ease it's not funny.

If you know the risks, or have to have one, why not? You don't have to go through a possible 8+ hours of labor to have a baby. It's painful and some people cannot handle that kind of pain even with painkillers.
When my mom was in labor with my brother she was violently ill, but still gave birth. If I was in that situation, I would defintely go for a c-section. Twenty or more hours of that and I would just die. . . It should always be an option, even if you don't require one. Just because you don't need one, doesn't mean you shouldn't have the option for one. It should be the mother's choice if she has a c-section.

yes it is more of a risk, i was born by C section, but it is risky, as they say the baby may not be able to breathe

C-section's are fine, as long as it's for a medical reason, or a psycological (sp) reason (after being assesed)

having a c-section to fit in with a schedule, or cuz they think its easier, is just wrong.
it's surgery, it carries more risks to mum and baby and should only be performed if absolutly neccessary. it also takes longer to recover.

take me and my friend, she had an emergency c-section with her first, and a planned c-section with her second, as she had a pelvis problem. it took her weeks to recover.
i had a normal birth and recovered in a few days. yeah, it damn well hurts, but only for as long as you're in labour. with a c-section, youre in pain for weeks.

so basically, i agree with c-sections for medical reasons. otehrwise, no. phew. another waffle there,

When I was pregnant with my first, I was induced but then needed a c/s. She was literally too big for me to birth. Because of the fact that she was not an abnormally large baby (7lbs 14oz) I was required to have a c/s for baby #2 also. Good thing too, at 2 weeks early he was over 9lbs. When I got pregnant with #3, once again I had no other choice but a planned c/s. He was born 3 weeks early (I went in to labor on my own before the date of my c/s) and was 7lbs12oz.

I do believe that a woman has a right to choose how her baby is brought into the world, but if there is no reason why she medically needs a c/s, then she should pay all costs.

Sure we are all scared about giving birth. I mean I pushed for 3 1/2 hours with no epidural (not by choice, the stint fell out and I was with out pain meds during the most painful time). But even for me in the beginning, a vaginal birth was my only option. I have scars on my tummy, I have numbs spots on my back and stomach. And after 3 c/s's I cannot have any more children.

But, I wouldn't want it any other way.