Personally I “thought” I should want one because that is what my midwives said would be best for me and the baby. I did all the correct preparation they told me to do, and was wildly unprepared for the staggering level of agony I experienced with a long unmedicated labor. Like, wildly unprepared. It was like torture—I kept thinking that this must be what waterboarding was like or what victims of wartime torture feel. When I caved after 24 hours of needless suffering and got an epidural, the midwives blamed me for my fear causing the pain, and then for the cascade of interventions that followed.

So for me, I don’t like that much of the dominant messaging around it from certain provider groups is frankly, a bunch of lies. Things like: pain is because you are scared or it’s not pain, you need to reframe your thinking and experience it as a rush which is just a lot of pressure and is not painful (ha!) or that you can experience birth as one big giant orgasm (ha ha ha!).

I don’t care if you have pain relief or not, but I personally don’t think women should be sold a bill of lies around the superiority of unmedicated childbirth and the supposedly better outcomes it has. If anything, having pain relief in labor can be protective against PPD and PTSD, not the other way around. And many in the unmedicated group love to brag about their strength and superiority and shame women with C sections or who had difficult births that needed intervention, and to me it’s so offensive.

Like, my older sister had two straightforward unmedicated births with minimal tearing. One was like 8 hours and the other was 6. She will be the first to tell you that her experience was easy compared to me and my sister’s births, which both exceeded 24 hours and involved interventions (pitocin, vacuum, C-section, etc) and far worse tearing and recoveries. But she’s the exception to the rule.

Anonymous wrote:Because sometimes it seems like women are more concerned about their birth experience than they are about the health of their baby. You can't see why some would be bothered by that?

Prioritizing an unmedicated birth is not at the expense of their babies health. Do you really see these things as being at odds?

UNMEDICATED BIRTH IS NOT EQUAL TO HOME BIRTH.

So much ignorance. So many morons.

Anonymous wrote:Because a lot of the language around it uses scare tactics about hospital births and can put women in unnecessary harm.

In general we need to do more so that women feel empowered and strong and supported in all different ways of giving birth. Midwives and doctors should work together. I love so much about midwifery, but delivering at home is not always a smart option. As one example, both me and my daughter would have died if I'd tried to deliver at home. We had no indication that would have been the case.

I just posted, but most CNMs in this country practice in hospital settings. Midwifery is not synonymous with home births - that’s inaccurate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because sometimes it seems like women are more concerned about their birth experience than they are about the health of their baby. You can't see why some would be bothered by that?

Because studies have shown that babies' outcomes are better during normal births without pain meds compared to normal births with pain meds. So in this particular case, women usually do it FOR their babies. No one wants pain, PP.

What studies?

Also, plenty of women are self-righteous about this issue and all too glad to suffer. DC Urban Martyrs, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are usually self-righteous about it.

And naively idealistic about it.

wtf don't hate, congratulate

Exhibit A. It’s not a competition.

Because a lot of the language around it uses scare tactics about hospital births and can put women in unnecessary harm.

In general we need to do more so that women feel empowered and strong and supported in all different ways of giving birth. Midwives and doctors should work together. I love so much about midwifery, but delivering at home is not always a smart option. As one example, both me and my daughter would have died if I'd tried to deliver at home. We had no indication that would have been the case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are usually self-righteous about it.

And naively idealistic about it.

wtf don't hate, congratulate

Anonymous wrote:People are usually self-righteous about it.

This. I mean, you don't have to tell anyone except the people who are assisting.

As for medical people, it's their job to point out risk.

Anonymous wrote:People are usually self-righteous about it.

And naively idealistic about it.

Anonymous wrote:Because sometimes it seems like women are more concerned about their birth experience than they are about the health of their baby. You can't see why some would be bothered by that?

Because studies have shown that babies' outcomes are better during normal births without pain meds compared to normal births with pain meds. So in this particular case, women usually do it FOR their babies. No one wants pain, PP.

I have not come across that myself. I had two births without pain medication (but one with unavoidable pitocin - super without pain meds!) with my husband, who is a doctor, in the hospital room, and no one said a word. My friends didn't either. However I believe an OB should make sure that the mother knows what she could be getting into. As was the case for me, sometimes interventions need to happen anyway, and on a woman without pain medication, they might be traumatic.

People are usually self-righteous about it.

Because sometimes it seems like women are more concerned about their birth experience than they are about the health of their baby. You can't see why some would be bothered by that?

Or birth that is not augmented medically? It’s like there are those who are offended that women would like to have as few interventions as possible and see this approach as self-righteous or naively idealistic.