Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thread history is here for all to see. You know perfectly well there was a PP who derailed the thread with talk of VBAC, and someone who chimed in about how all pelvic floor problems are from vaginal birth, which others took issue with.

Happens all the time. You're in the wrong place if you think DCUM posters are going to color within the lines.

And yeah, sounds like there are some folks who take issue with "tell me why a c-section's better" because it WASN'T for them. Those stories matter, too. Maybe the OP will get a fuller accounting of the good AND the bad so she can try to improve on the experience for herself and her baby. I saw some great nuggets of wisdom in this thread for any woman ever facing a c-section. If you only ever hear the positive stories then you're no better than the ones who actually are pushing an agenda - my ___ birth was all rainbows and puppy dogs! is not an authentic or helpful exercise.

So you object to women who have had bad vaginal birth experiences posting on this thread and you want to discredit them, but you think it's fine for women with bad C-section experiences to post? Also, nobody said that all pelvic floor injuries were from vaginal birth. Honestly, your dismissiveness and shaming of women who have had birth injuries is horrid. No wonder those poor women can't get good healthcare.

You are showing your true colors.

In haven't posted on this thread in a couple of days FWIW and haven't been engaging in the back and forth here.

But I mean. Let's say someone gets diagnosed with late stage renal disease and is informed that they can't eat meat anymore. So they ask a few friends if they have any experience with vegetarianism. Renal disease guy had to follow a restrictive diet once in their past and it was really difficult and messed with their head and caused some depression and they're nervous.

So a few friends start talking about positive experiences, recommend some vegetarian restaurants, are generally encouraging. One other friend talks about how they might be in the same position and are wrestling with the choice of whether to go full vegetarian for the same reasons renal disease guy is worried. Then the last friend goes on a rant about how it's impossible to get all the nutrition you need on a vegetarian diet. Plus it makes being friends and going to meals so difficult and most people who do it just eat macaroni and cheese and aren't even healthy.

That last friend is a d*ck.

OP, to your original question, as someone who had an unplanned C, a VBAC, and a scheduled C, I will say that with both my CSs I felt like I recovered faster in some sense than with my VBAC. There was a point about 4 weeks out where I felt basically 100% from the CS, especially the scheduled one, where I hadn’t labored. With my VBAC, I was still bleeding and things didn’t feel quite right a month out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are definitely a lot of people invested in minimizing vaginal birth injuries in women.

And by minimizing, I mean pretending they don't happen and shaming those who experience them.

Sure. Just like there are a lot of people invested in minimizing the risks of C-sections.

The real issue is that people minimize WOMEN'S health issues, and pregnancy/L&D are one of the most glaring examples.

OP, in your case, you're doing what's safest for the baby and for you. That's what's better about a C-section for you. Many of the planning benefits you can get with induction, and no one knows exactly how things will go in either case. But for you, this option is safest. It's great that you have it! I hope all goes well.

The bolded is inaccurate for DCUM, and in my experience, inaccurate for outside of DCUM too. I heard far more about risks associated with C-sections than with vaginal birth. When I scheduled mine, I had people freely tell me about all the awful things that would happen to me (none of which occurred). People asked me why I wouldn't "just try." You see it on DCUM threads. I have seen posters with severe vaginal birth injuries told to stop posting. I had one woman tell me I didn't have a birth, I just had a surgery.

That's awful.

And, really, who cares what is accurate for DCUM? I mean, really? C-sections are riskier than vaginal deliveries, and CDC and WHO are clear that they're performed too much. Which suggests that despite being *actually riskier*, physicians are underestimating that risk.

I still stand by my main point, which is that women's issues in general are minimized.

Links to CDC saying so (cs being riskier)?

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_04.pdf

The findings in this study that women with cesarean deliveries
have more morbidity than women with vaginal deliveries is consistent
with many other studies (2–5,9,12).

Women with a previous
cesarean delivery who labored and had vaginal birth generally had
lower rates for most of the morbidities, but failed trials of labor were
generally associated with higher morbidity than scheduled repeat
cesarean deliveries, especially for ruptured uterus, which was seven
times higher (495.4 per 100,000 compared with 65.6).

The morbidities they looked at were blood transfusion, unplanned hysterectomy, ruptured uterus, and ICU admission.

The CSs looked at lump together EMERGENCY CSs when something went wrong and planned CSs (elective and for medical reasons).

In an EMERGENCY CS, either mom or baby had major problems during the labor and would have had either significant health issues or death as an outcome without the surgery.

So it's not CS that CAUSES ruptured uterus and other things you cite. It tries to fix what went wrong the natural way.

I didn't say CS "causes" ruptured uterus, where did you get that from? It's usually your scar from the previous CS that causes a rupture. Ruptures can still happen in a repeat elective CS but at about a 3x lower rate than in an attempted VBAC. <25% of all ruptures are severe.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC443444/

CS have a domino effect - each one increases risk of severe complications in the subsequent pregnancy. That's why this OP doesn't need to fret about risks. She's at low risk for complications having had no prior CS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are definitely a lot of people invested in minimizing vaginal birth injuries in women.

And by minimizing, I mean pretending they don't happen and shaming those who experience them.

Sure. Just like there are a lot of people invested in minimizing the risks of C-sections.

The real issue is that people minimize WOMEN'S health issues, and pregnancy/L&D are one of the most glaring examples.

OP, in your case, you're doing what's safest for the baby and for you. That's what's better about a C-section for you. Many of the planning benefits you can get with induction, and no one knows exactly how things will go in either case. But for you, this option is safest. It's great that you have it! I hope all goes well.

The bolded is inaccurate for DCUM, and in my experience, inaccurate for outside of DCUM too. I heard far more about risks associated with C-sections than with vaginal birth. When I scheduled mine, I had people freely tell me about all the awful things that would happen to me (none of which occurred). People asked me why I wouldn't "just try." You see it on DCUM threads. I have seen posters with severe vaginal birth injuries told to stop posting. I had one woman tell me I didn't have a birth, I just had a surgery.

That's awful.

And, really, who cares what is accurate for DCUM? I mean, really? C-sections are riskier than vaginal deliveries, and CDC and WHO are clear that they're performed too much. Which suggests that despite being *actually riskier*, physicians are underestimating that risk.

I still stand by my main point, which is that women's issues in general are minimized.

Links to CDC saying so (cs being riskier)?

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_04.pdf

The findings in this study that women with cesarean deliveries
have more morbidity than women with vaginal deliveries is consistent
with many other studies (2–5,9,12).

Women with a previous
cesarean delivery who labored and had vaginal birth generally had
lower rates for most of the morbidities, but failed trials of labor were
generally associated with higher morbidity than scheduled repeat
cesarean deliveries, especially for ruptured uterus, which was seven
times higher (495.4 per 100,000 compared with 65.6).

The morbidities they looked at were blood transfusion, unplanned hysterectomy, ruptured uterus, and ICU admission.

The CSs looked at lump together EMERGENCY CSs when something went wrong and planned CSs (elective and for medical reasons).

In an EMERGENCY CS, either mom or baby had major problems during the labor and would have had either significant health issues or death as an outcome without the surgery.

So it's not CS that CAUSES ruptured uterus and other things you cite. It tries to fix what went wrong the natural way.

OP, putting aside the vaginal birth crazies who have unfortunately infested this thread, how are you doing? Are you feeling a bit more reassured? Have the positive stories helped you feel better?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thread history is here for all to see. You know perfectly well there was a PP who derailed the thread with talk of VBAC, and someone who chimed in about how all pelvic floor problems are from vaginal birth, which others took issue with.

Happens all the time. You're in the wrong place if you think DCUM posters are going to color within the lines.

And yeah, sounds like there are some folks who take issue with "tell me why a c-section's better" because it WASN'T for them. Those stories matter, too. Maybe the OP will get a fuller accounting of the good AND the bad so she can try to improve on the experience for herself and her baby. I saw some great nuggets of wisdom in this thread for any woman ever facing a c-section. If you only ever hear the positive stories then you're no better than the ones who actually are pushing an agenda - my ___ birth was all rainbows and puppy dogs! is not an authentic or helpful exercise.

So you object to women who have had bad vaginal birth experiences posting on this thread and you want to discredit them, but you think it's fine for women with bad C-section experiences to post? Also, nobody said that all pelvic floor injuries were from vaginal birth. Honestly, your dismissiveness and shaming of women who have had birth injuries is horrid. No wonder those poor women can't get good healthcare.

You are showing your true colors.

I can't make heads or tails of this nonsense. Where were women shamed?? Those poor women can't good healthcare because of ... lay people on DCUM? I give up.

You are just having a temper tantrum because you were called on your bad behavior. Okay, then.

Yes you certainly put me in my place - I'm mighty put out by an unhinged internet stranger looking down her nose at me and calling me a bad girl. I'll let you continue to froth at the mouth that women are being shamed, discredited, dismissive, misogynistic, and the reason women with childbirth injuries can't get good care. Please go on and dig yourself deeper.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thread history is here for all to see. You know perfectly well there was a PP who derailed the thread with talk of VBAC, and someone who chimed in about how all pelvic floor problems are from vaginal birth, which others took issue with.

Happens all the time. You're in the wrong place if you think DCUM posters are going to color within the lines.

And yeah, sounds like there are some folks who take issue with "tell me why a c-section's better" because it WASN'T for them. Those stories matter, too. Maybe the OP will get a fuller accounting of the good AND the bad so she can try to improve on the experience for herself and her baby. I saw some great nuggets of wisdom in this thread for any woman ever facing a c-section. If you only ever hear the positive stories then you're no better than the ones who actually are pushing an agenda - my ___ birth was all rainbows and puppy dogs! is not an authentic or helpful exercise.

So you object to women who have had bad vaginal birth experiences posting on this thread and you want to discredit them, but you think it's fine for women with bad C-section experiences to post? Also, nobody said that all pelvic floor injuries were from vaginal birth. Honestly, your dismissiveness and shaming of women who have had birth injuries is horrid. No wonder those poor women can't get good healthcare.

You are showing your true colors.

I can't make heads or tails of this nonsense. Where were women shamed?? Those poor women can't good healthcare because of ... lay people on DCUM? I give up.

You are just having a temper tantrum because you were called on your bad behavior. Okay, then.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thread history is here for all to see. You know perfectly well there was a PP who derailed the thread with talk of VBAC, and someone who chimed in about how all pelvic floor problems are from vaginal birth, which others took issue with.

Happens all the time. You're in the wrong place if you think DCUM posters are going to color within the lines.

And yeah, sounds like there are some folks who take issue with "tell me why a c-section's better" because it WASN'T for them. Those stories matter, too. Maybe the OP will get a fuller accounting of the good AND the bad so she can try to improve on the experience for herself and her baby. I saw some great nuggets of wisdom in this thread for any woman ever facing a c-section. If you only ever hear the positive stories then you're no better than the ones who actually are pushing an agenda - my ___ birth was all rainbows and puppy dogs! is not an authentic or helpful exercise.

So you object to women who have had bad vaginal birth experiences posting on this thread and you want to discredit them, but you think it's fine for women with bad C-section experiences to post? Also, nobody said that all pelvic floor injuries were from vaginal birth. Honestly, your dismissiveness and shaming of women who have had birth injuries is horrid. No wonder those poor women can't get good healthcare.

You are showing your true colors.

I can't make heads or tails of this nonsense. Where were women shamed?? Those poor women can't good healthcare because of ... lay people on DCUM? I give up.

Anonymous wrote:The thread history is here for all to see. You know perfectly well there was a PP who derailed the thread with talk of VBAC, and someone who chimed in about how all pelvic floor problems are from vaginal birth, which others took issue with.

Happens all the time. You're in the wrong place if you think DCUM posters are going to color within the lines.

And yeah, sounds like there are some folks who take issue with "tell me why a c-section's better" because it WASN'T for them. Those stories matter, too. Maybe the OP will get a fuller accounting of the good AND the bad so she can try to improve on the experience for herself and her baby. I saw some great nuggets of wisdom in this thread for any woman ever facing a c-section. If you only ever hear the positive stories then you're no better than the ones who actually are pushing an agenda - my ___ birth was all rainbows and puppy dogs! is not an authentic or helpful exercise.

So you object to women who have had bad vaginal birth experiences posting on this thread and you want to discredit them, but you think it's fine for women with bad C-section experiences to post? Also, nobody said that all pelvic floor injuries were from vaginal birth. Honestly, your dismissiveness and shaming of women who have had birth injuries is horrid. No wonder those poor women can't get good healthcare.

You are showing your true colors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are definitely a lot of people invested in minimizing vaginal birth injuries in women.

And by minimizing, I mean pretending they don't happen and shaming those who experience them.

Sure. Just like there are a lot of people invested in minimizing the risks of C-sections.

The real issue is that people minimize WOMEN'S health issues, and pregnancy/L&D are one of the most glaring examples.

OP, in your case, you're doing what's safest for the baby and for you. That's what's better about a C-section for you. Many of the planning benefits you can get with induction, and no one knows exactly how things will go in either case. But for you, this option is safest. It's great that you have it! I hope all goes well.

The bolded is inaccurate for DCUM, and in my experience, inaccurate for outside of DCUM too. I heard far more about risks associated with C-sections than with vaginal birth. When I scheduled mine, I had people freely tell me about all the awful things that would happen to me (none of which occurred). People asked me why I wouldn't "just try." You see it on DCUM threads. I have seen posters with severe vaginal birth injuries told to stop posting. I had one woman tell me I didn't have a birth, I just had a surgery.

That's awful.

And, really, who cares what is accurate for DCUM? I mean, really? C-sections are riskier than vaginal deliveries, and CDC and WHO are clear that they're performed too much. Which suggests that despite being *actually riskier*, physicians are underestimating that risk.

I still stand by my main point, which is that women's issues in general are minimized.

Links to CDC saying so (cs being riskier)?

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_04.pdf

The findings in this study that women with cesarean deliveries
have more morbidity than women with vaginal deliveries is consistent
with many other studies (2–5,9,12).

Women with a previous
cesarean delivery who labored and had vaginal birth generally had
lower rates for most of the morbidities, but failed trials of labor were
generally associated with higher morbidity than scheduled repeat
cesarean deliveries, especially for ruptured uterus, which was seven
times higher (495.4 per 100,000 compared with 65.6).

The morbidities they looked at were blood transfusion, unplanned hysterectomy, ruptured uterus, and ICU admission.

The thread history is here for all to see. You know perfectly well there was a PP who derailed the thread with talk of VBAC, and someone who chimed in about how all pelvic floor problems are from vaginal birth, which others took issue with.

Happens all the time. You're in the wrong place if you think DCUM posters are going to color within the lines.

And yeah, sounds like there are some folks who take issue with "tell me why a c-section's better" because it WASN'T for them. Those stories matter, too. Maybe the OP will get a fuller accounting of the good AND the bad so she can try to improve on the experience for herself and her baby. I saw some great nuggets of wisdom in this thread for any woman ever facing a c-section. If you only ever hear the positive stories then you're no better than the ones who actually are pushing an agenda - my ___ birth was all rainbows and puppy dogs! is not an authentic or helpful exercise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The conclusion of "riskier" for C-sections doesn't account for permanent birth injuries. Frankly the fact that PP is parroting that line without understanding the underlying studies makes her point suspect.

The C-section research re risks often includes high risk births and mothers with preexisting bad health conditions, but often doesn't include permanent vaginal birth injuries. Therefore the assessment of risk is a lot more nuanced than how PP is making it sound.

Of course it’s nuanced. Speaking of nuance, you and others are doing a nice job of ignoring the pelvic floor damage done by pregnancy. Moreover, I understand the underlying studies just fine. It’s a very, very complicated issue. And no one with any integrity would say that overall, major surgery carries less risk than not.

I know this issue evokes strong emotions, which is really what many (most?) of these posts are about. And again, the bigger issue is women’s health, period.

What's annoying is that this is a post from an OP who needs a c section and is just asking for some positive experiences and a bunch of people feel the need to come on and throw shade at women who liked their c section experiences.

+1 There's a time and a place, but unfortunately there's a subsection on these boards that think those are always and everywhere.

Who is throwing shade at women who liked their c-sections? Seriously? People are discussing pros and cons, risks and benefits. It's not "throwing shade" or "shaming" anyone to state facts and every opinion isn't a judgment of someone else's experience or decision.

And since this thread was an OP who has no choice but to get a C-section specifically asking for the benefits, this thread is not the TIME nor the PLACE for your "well actually have you heard about all the risks" BS. Start your own thread.

+1

It's clear those PPs have a compulsive need to control the birth experience of other women that is deeply seeded.

Control? You are the one trying to censor the thread and calling posters misogynists (classic DCUM insult btw). No one even posted about c-section risks except in response to other posts that were misleading and all "I don't understand why anyone would opt for a VBAC" which triggered a few responses of the type you are pissed about.

You are now fabricating the thread history to justify your appalling behavior. Nobody posted misleading posts because they were talking about their own personal history. Unless, of course, you consider positive birth experience with C-section to be "misleading," or the PP who had awful vaginal injuries who talked about them someone you want to shut up because she doesn't support the narrative you are peddling.

You people are just awful.

DP, but personal stories are not data. Go back and look at the thread history. It's not fair to claim that horror stories about vaginal births are okay just to make the OP feel good. Worst case scenarios don't help anyone. As many of us have said, the best thing for the OP in this case is that she has the option for a safe delivery (C-section) and that planned sections tend to have easier recoveries than when they happen after long labors, i.e., hopefully hers is the former.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The conclusion of "riskier" for C-sections doesn't account for permanent birth injuries. Frankly the fact that PP is parroting that line without understanding the underlying studies makes her point suspect.

The C-section research re risks often includes high risk births and mothers with preexisting bad health conditions, but often doesn't include permanent vaginal birth injuries. Therefore the assessment of risk is a lot more nuanced than how PP is making it sound.

Of course it’s nuanced. Speaking of nuance, you and others are doing a nice job of ignoring the pelvic floor damage done by pregnancy. Moreover, I understand the underlying studies just fine. It’s a very, very complicated issue. And no one with any integrity would say that overall, major surgery carries less risk than not.

I know this issue evokes strong emotions, which is really what many (most?) of these posts are about. And again, the bigger issue is women’s health, period.

What's annoying is that this is a post from an OP who needs a c section and is just asking for some positive experiences and a bunch of people feel the need to come on and throw shade at women who liked their c section experiences.

+1 There's a time and a place, but unfortunately there's a subsection on these boards that think those are always and everywhere.

Who is throwing shade at women who liked their c-sections? Seriously? People are discussing pros and cons, risks and benefits. It's not "throwing shade" or "shaming" anyone to state facts and every opinion isn't a judgment of someone else's experience or decision.

And since this thread was an OP who has no choice but to get a C-section specifically asking for the benefits, this thread is not the TIME nor the PLACE for your "well actually have you heard about all the risks" BS. Start your own thread.

+1

It's clear those PPs have a compulsive need to control the birth experience of other women that is deeply seeded.

Control? You are the one trying to censor the thread and calling posters misogynists (classic DCUM insult btw). No one even posted about c-section risks except in response to other posts that were misleading and all "I don't understand why anyone would opt for a VBAC" which triggered a few responses of the type you are pissed about.

You are now fabricating the thread history to justify your appalling behavior. Nobody posted misleading posts because they were talking about their own personal history. Unless, of course, you consider positive birth experience with C-section to be "misleading," or the PP who had awful vaginal injuries who talked about them someone you want to shut up because she doesn't support the narrative you are peddling.

You people are just awful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The conclusion of "riskier" for C-sections doesn't account for permanent birth injuries. Frankly the fact that PP is parroting that line without understanding the underlying studies makes her point suspect.

The C-section research re risks often includes high risk births and mothers with preexisting bad health conditions, but often doesn't include permanent vaginal birth injuries. Therefore the assessment of risk is a lot more nuanced than how PP is making it sound.

Of course it’s nuanced. Speaking of nuance, you and others are doing a nice job of ignoring the pelvic floor damage done by pregnancy. Moreover, I understand the underlying studies just fine. It’s a very, very complicated issue. And no one with any integrity would say that overall, major surgery carries less risk than not.

I know this issue evokes strong emotions, which is really what many (most?) of these posts are about. And again, the bigger issue is women’s health, period.

What's annoying is that this is a post from an OP who needs a c section and is just asking for some positive experiences and a bunch of people feel the need to come on and throw shade at women who liked their c section experiences.

+1 There's a time and a place, but unfortunately there's a subsection on these boards that think those are always and everywhere.

Who is throwing shade at women who liked their c-sections? Seriously? People are discussing pros and cons, risks and benefits. It's not "throwing shade" or "shaming" anyone to state facts and every opinion isn't a judgment of someone else's experience or decision.

And since this thread was an OP who has no choice but to get a C-section specifically asking for the benefits, this thread is not the TIME nor the PLACE for your "well actually have you heard about all the risks" BS. Start your own thread.

+1

It's clear those PPs have a compulsive need to control the birth experience of other women that is deeply seeded.

Control? You are the one trying to censor the thread and calling posters misogynists (classic DCUM insult btw). No one even posted about c-section risks except in response to other posts that were misleading and all "I don't understand why anyone would opt for a VBAC" which triggered a few responses of the type you are pissed about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The conclusion of "riskier" for C-sections doesn't account for permanent birth injuries. Frankly the fact that PP is parroting that line without understanding the underlying studies makes her point suspect.

The C-section research re risks often includes high risk births and mothers with preexisting bad health conditions, but often doesn't include permanent vaginal birth injuries. Therefore the assessment of risk is a lot more nuanced than how PP is making it sound.

Of course it’s nuanced. Speaking of nuance, you and others are doing a nice job of ignoring the pelvic floor damage done by pregnancy. Moreover, I understand the underlying studies just fine. It’s a very, very complicated issue. And no one with any integrity would say that overall, major surgery carries less risk than not.

I know this issue evokes strong emotions, which is really what many (most?) of these posts are about. And again, the bigger issue is women’s health, period.

What's annoying is that this is a post from an OP who needs a c section and is just asking for some positive experiences and a bunch of people feel the need to come on and throw shade at women who liked their c section experiences.

+1 There's a time and a place, but unfortunately there's a subsection on these boards that think those are always and everywhere.

Who is throwing shade at women who liked their c-sections? Seriously? People are discussing pros and cons, risks and benefits. It's not "throwing shade" or "shaming" anyone to state facts and every opinion isn't a judgment of someone else's experience or decision.

And since this thread was an OP who has no choice but to get a C-section specifically asking for the benefits, this thread is not the TIME nor the PLACE for your "well actually have you heard about all the risks" BS. Start your own thread.

+1

It's clear those PPs have a compulsive need to control the birth experience of other women that is deeply seeded.