Thoughts about this??

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-23-2003
Thoughts about this??
3946
Tue, 03-27-2007 - 11:53am

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-28-2003
Thu, 04-19-2007 - 1:48pm

Umm, pay attention. I'm not talking about mothers.

"The risk of death to NEWBORNS delivered by voluntary Caesarean section is much higher than previously believed, according to recent study..."

Newborns would be BABIES, not mothers. Don't know too many newborn mothers myself.

I was giving you a chance to say that you were talking about babies being born to mothers with certain medical conditions or babies being born early or late or some such conditional thing so as to allow your statement to make sense.

You can't get away with saying that C-section is the safest thing for baby if you don't clarify/expound in some way. Because as it stands, you are wrong.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-06-2004
Thu, 04-19-2007 - 1:49pm

I don't have to explain other countries.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2005
Thu, 04-19-2007 - 1:52pm
I believe her post specified a higher mortality rate for babies who were delivered by c-section, not mothers. Surely that is relevant to the question of how much safer c-sections are specifically for babies?
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2005
Thu, 04-19-2007 - 2:00pm
A futon on the floor is perfectly comfortable. Again, neither crib nor bassinet is a necessity for a baby. Convenient, comfortable, nice to have...sure.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
Thu, 04-19-2007 - 2:13pm

Long thread, so it's not surprising things are a bit confused.

It's not a question of whether it's developmentally appropriate to nurse to whatever age, although that's certainly among the topics being discussed here.

But my OP was that it's developmentally appropriate for kids to compare themselves to one another, wrt age of weaning and everything else, if what's involved is something they remember. And a kid who wasn't fully weaned until the age of 5, 6, 7 or 8 would probably remember. Would *most* such kids be embarrassed to have that discussed among their peers? Maybe not, but who knows? Would a *few* such kids be embarrassed? My bet would be yes.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2007
Thu, 04-19-2007 - 2:18pm

Um, more "than previously believed" does not mean a c-section is not safer for the baby than vaginal delivery.

You must really have some issues in mind that I sure don't know about - nor care to - if you think I need "a chance" from you. This is not a battle-field, just a debate. Take a breath, 'K?

When you start posting threats to me like <>, then you might want to re-think popping in here for the sole purpose of attacking me. You won't win. Sorry. C-sections are pure and simple much safer for the baby.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2007
Thu, 04-19-2007 - 2:21pm
As you know because you posted after Suzymom, she already covered this. I'm really getting tired of you attacking me personally. If you don't think Suzymom can debate this, then let her and me know and I'll debate you only. But I think it's very wrong that you never seem to add anything substantive to the debate but will only enter the debate to attack me personally or insult my diction. Please stop attacking me. Thank you.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-15-2007
Thu, 04-19-2007 - 2:44pm
Gee, I thought that a lower mortality rate meant safer? Who knew!
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-15-2007
Thu, 04-19-2007 - 2:45pm
Insult? Personally attack? Sorry, my dear, telling you that you are wrong do neither of those things.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-23-2003
Thu, 04-19-2007 - 2:50pm

<Please stop attacking me. Thank you.>


Sorry I dont' mean to be rude but where were you being personally attacked?

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Pages