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.

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.

+Infinity

It's like you state your own experience and talk solely about your own experience and somehow someone feels they are being attacked.

Or, as I did, you reference the research and frame the issue as more about women's health, people try to make it about themselves. If people hear personal attacks in the statement that women's health issues are minimized, that's their issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The worst labor & delivery stories I've heard involve moms who went for traditional birth (some unmediated), ended up with complications and ultimately had emergency c-sections after looooong and painful labors.

The best stories I've heard are from moms who (for one reason or another) had scheduled c-sections. No labor pain, no surprises, etc. You can even set up your house to make things easier during recovery (i.e. buy a step stool for the bedroom.) All super happy, healthy babies.

This was me. Birth number one was scenario 1; birth number two was a planned C. Oh boy was the planned C lovely. You just check in, get some meds, baby is born 2 hours from when you get to the hospital. Everything is planned and unless you go into labor early, you know exactly when the bay will arrive. I loved that. Recovery from a planned C was a breeze. I was driving 5 days later.

Anonymous wrote:The worst labor & delivery stories I've heard involve moms who went for traditional birth (some unmediated), ended up with complications and ultimately had emergency c-sections after looooong and painful labors.

The best stories I've heard are from moms who (for one reason or another) had scheduled c-sections. No labor pain, no surprises, etc. You can even set up your house to make things easier during recovery (i.e. buy a step stool for the bedroom.) All super happy, healthy babies.

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.

+Infinity

It's like you state your own experience and talk solely about your own experience and somehow someone feels they are being attacked.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP who wished for a reason to have a scheduled c section instead of a VBAC. I’m aware that it’s my choice and I can make it without guilt. (No one is pressuring me into a VBAC—in fact my mom has gently suggested she thinks I shouldn’t do it and am not missing anything but stepped back after sharing her feelings. DH doesn’t care. OB is very supportive of trying a VBAC if I want but hasn’t pushed it either.)

I’m genuinely struggling with the decision and feel like fear of all the issues with vaginal deliveries mentioned here is the only reason I’d pick a c section and I try not to make decisions on fear alone. My emergency c section was traumatic; not even seeing my dd for 12 hours and not holding her for 36 hours and leaving the hospital without her for 6 weeks was traumatic. And while none of that had anything to do with me having a c section I do hate the idea of choosing another situation where I’m physically unable to immediately hold my baby and one where I’m in too much physical pain to lift the baby or care for him myself for probably 7-10 days. I feel like I really missed out on bonding with my newborn last time and it took months to build a bond with her. So while none of *my* reasons for hesitating to schedule a c section should impact OP since she already had a vaginal birth, it is a tough choice for me to make and I can’t help but wish it would just be taken out of my hands.

NP. PP I have never had a VBAC so cannot speak to that, but I have had exactly the kind of emergency section you describe (yay mag!) and ended up with a second scheduled c section because they couldn't induce me at 39 weeks and I didn't want to push my luck on my preesclampsia/HELLP returning.

I had all these exact same fears, and like I said I can't speak for a VBAC but I can say that the difference between that first c and the second one was NIGHT AND DAY. Like truly difficult to even compare them. I don't know about you but I only had an epidural with the first so could feel so much. With the scheduled second I got a spinal and couldn't feel a thing and was very alert throughout the procedure. Baby #2 was handed to me as soon as he came out and I was able to hold him and bond with him while they closed me up. He came straight to the room with me and I was able to hold him and strong enough to get him out of his bassinet while in the hospital. I walked same day (morning procedure, delivered around 9am, walking by 4pm). I was able to hold and care for the baby probably from day 2 onward. It was about 10 days before I could pick up my toddler again but we did a lot of hugs. I felt like I was able to totally bond with my son so quickly in a way I was deprived with my daughter. And unlike with my daughter, I had no PPD, no delay in feeling bonded to the baby, no PTSD from the L&D experience.

So like I said, no commentary on VBAC, but if your concern is that a scheduled c will be ANYTHING like the emergency c you describe, it will not be. They are entirely different experiences and I actually found my scheduled c to be an unbelievably positive and healing experience. I am relieved to not have had to go through any type of traumatic delivery the second time because the first was really really hard. I'm due with #3 in late November and actually looking forward to my scheduled c!

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.

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.

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.

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.