I am so glad to hear your DH was able to stick by your decisions! You are a lucky woman. :D
My own SO was so freaked out by the sight of me in so much pain that he lost his ability to interfere. He tried really hard but in the end whenI asked him, he gave the "wrong" answer. When my midwife spoke up and said she thought it might be a good idea, I caved. It's on me, but it still sucks. DD was born sideways - I'd had 22 hours of active back labor and she didn't even turn all the way. It hurt so so so much. The nurse with me was so sweet and kept encouraging me to keep going without the meds. I really wanted to but when they asked me if I wanted to try the birthing ball, it was about 45 minutes after my water had broken and I really thought I'd never be able to walk again, hahaha.
I had stadol too. it was AWFUL. They injected it into my thigh and it was worse than labor pain. The burning, oh god. And my thigh was still sore at my 6 week PP check up! Never, ever again!
<<But if you had a tribe of say 20 people half men and half women, each woman only needs to have two babies survive to maintain the same number in the next generation. And cavewomen didn't have the pill, so you could assume she could have a baby every couple years if she was having sex, and there are a lot of years a woman can be fertile - so they didn't need all the babies to survive to populate. And if one or two women had babies that she didn't nurse or didn't thrive when she did nurse, it wouldn't keep the tribe from increasing in size.>>
. then we could say ff'ing is yet another attempt to keep babies alive that long ago might not have made it. Would that be a fair statement? Then you can argue it's been overused, just like c-sections and other interventions?>>>
This is something I have long thought. It's always been my opinion that we try to hard to save everyone in this culture and it leads to further complications - monetarily, healthwise and probably others as well. I've thought this for a very long time and even talked about it in a health class once, where a girl who was born prematurely got really ticked at me for suggesting that she might not have lived without modern medicine. People tend to think of it as miraculous and wonderful, but nature and biology suggest that it is detrimental to have such an expanding population and there are built in checks to keep it down. With science, we are circumventing the natural order of life, and we've created an environment where the young and old and sick all survive when they woudln't have naturally. I fully believe this is partly or laregely responsible for the overpopulation of hte planet, the distribution of healthy resources and the carbon footprint we are amassing. Simply put, we try to save too many. I'm not espousing that we rid ourselves of preemie care (or elderly care), but I am pointing out that it's unnatural.
What if their own survival took precedence over populating the earth? How are we to know that these humans were even at all aware that population was key to overall species survival?>>>
Thats a really interesting point and I sort of think along these lines myself. I don't think that keeping babies alive was *always* so important as it is now.
What do you expect me to say? Breastfeeding is less risky and healthier for infants? I agree. That formula is so risky no woman in her right mind would use it unless she had to? I would not agree. If it's neither of those then I'm at a loss what you are hoping to get from me with your arguments. From a personal standpoint you are singing to the choir. From a broader perspective I believe every mom has a right to make choices she feels are best in her situation and it's not my business to say otherwise.
Pages
I am so glad to hear your DH was able to stick by your decisions! You are a lucky woman. :D
My own SO was so freaked out by the sight of me in so much pain that he lost his ability to interfere. He tried really hard but in the end whenI asked him, he gave the "wrong" answer. When my midwife spoke up and said she thought it might be a good idea, I caved. It's on me, but it still sucks. DD was born sideways - I'd had 22 hours of active back labor and she didn't even turn all the way. It hurt so so so much. The nurse with me was so sweet and kept encouraging me to keep going without the meds. I really wanted to but when they asked me if I wanted to try the birthing ball, it was about 45 minutes after my water had broken and I really thought I'd never be able to walk again, hahaha.
I had stadol too. it was AWFUL. They injected it into my thigh and it was worse than labor pain. The burning, oh god. And my thigh was still sore at my 6 week PP check up! Never, ever again!
Powered by CGISpy.com
Powered by CGISpy.com
One story I read, was that two men of the tribe would take the baby out into the forest, or a long distance from the camp, settlement, cave, etc. to
~*~ Catherine, mom to three grown men - Jason, Michael & Joshua and Granma to Christopher & Leia.
<<But if you had a tribe of say 20 people half men and half women, each woman only needs to have two babies survive to maintain the same number in the next generation. And cavewomen didn't have the pill, so you could assume she could have a baby every couple years if she was having sex, and there are a lot of years a woman can be fertile - so they didn't need all the babies to survive to populate. And if one or two women had babies that she didn't nurse or didn't thrive when she did nurse, it wouldn't keep the tribe from increasing in size.>>
True.
<<Most mammals care, very intimately, for their young.
If a nursing mom is having problems, I can see another nursing mom offering to help out occasionally. However,
~*~ Catherine, mom to three grown men - Jason, Michael & Joshua and Granma to Christopher & Leia.
. then we could say ff'ing is yet another attempt to keep babies alive that long ago might not have made it. Would that be a fair statement? Then you can argue it's been overused, just like c-sections and other interventions?>>>
This is something I have long thought. It's always been my opinion that we try to hard to save everyone in this culture and it leads to further complications - monetarily, healthwise and probably others as well. I've thought this for a very long time and even talked about it in a health class once, where a girl who was born prematurely got really ticked at me for suggesting that she might not have lived without modern medicine. People tend to think of it as miraculous and wonderful, but nature and biology suggest that it is detrimental to have such an expanding population and there are built in checks to keep it down. With science, we are circumventing the natural order of life, and we've created an environment where the young and old and sick all survive when they woudln't have naturally. I fully believe this is partly or laregely responsible for the overpopulation of hte planet, the distribution of healthy resources and the carbon footprint we are amassing. Simply put, we try to save too many. I'm not espousing that we rid ourselves of preemie care (or elderly care), but I am pointing out that it's unnatural.
Powered by CGISpy.com
Powered by CGISpy.com
This was the original point I was disagreeing with, or questioning. Back before we had birth control the only options were abstinence or bf'ing,>>>
I don't agree. Infanticide has been accepted in many cultures throughout history. As was abortion.
Powered by CGISpy.com
Powered by CGISpy.com
What if their own survival took precedence over populating the earth? How are we to know that these humans were even at all aware that population was key to overall species survival?>>>
Thats a really interesting point and I sort of think along these lines myself. I don't think that keeping babies alive was *always* so important as it is now.
Powered by CGISpy.com
Powered by CGISpy.com
One story I read, was that two men of the tribe would take the baby out into the forest, or a long distance from the camp, settlement, cave, etc. to
Malcolm Gladwell Blink
Pages