2wlady, most of the time the hospital interferes with the birth process.
The "bonding" between the mother and child is horribly interrupted because of how the hospital separates the baby and mother. The "bond" is a chemical process released in the mother and is a biological tie between mother and baby. This is not just a fond experience that is akin to "male bonding". No, it is what is seen in the animal world that creates the extreme association of the pair.
The hospital takes the baby and removes it from the mother so that this bonding never happens. Only natural birth away from the "experts" will allow this strong bond to happen.
The urge to eat the afterbirth (editted) is also chemically caused and is the natural scheme of things.
Painkillers and drugs are quite foreign to the nature of things.
I assure you that the strong bond occurs even ina hospital delivery. I think it's very ugly the way you devalue and demean every ones experience but your own. Kudos to you for reaching the pinnacle of personal perfection.
major bean wrote: Jaundice is associated with induced labor. No one said that it was associated with C-section. Please!
Can you please shorten your posts?
As you've done before, you find one specific detail to pick out that I misassumed, because of all the info that you threw out to distract with c-sections, and get to point out the one thing that I was wrong on. Yes, indeed, induced labor with oxytocin does increase jaundice, do you feel better now? Now, do you care to address everything else that I posted, both before and now? I did split up my posts the last time I responded to all your posts and you ignored those then, so why should I bother doing it that way if you aren't going to respond to everything anyway? It merely overloads the threads if I respond individually to each of your posts.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
major bean wrote: 2wlady, most of the time the hospital interferes with the birth process.
The "bonding" between the mother and child is horribly interrupted because of how the hospital separates the baby and mother. The "bond" is a chemical process released in the mother and is a biological tie between mother and baby.
The hospital takes the baby and removes it from the mother so that this bonding never happens. Only natural birth away from the "experts" will allow this strong bond to happen.
I'm curious how many babies you have personally given birth to?
major bean wrote: Each person should be an expert concerning their health. Relying upon doctors is just plain foolish.
Operate on yourself or your family much?
I have been operated upon with no painkiller. This was the removal of a tree splinter about 1/2 inch in diameter which was imbedded in my leg and had to be taken out. My brother did the honors. I did the bleeding. My brother then sewed up my leg. I still have the scar.
I have been bitten by a timber rattler with no medical followup. I swole up like a toad. That was quite an ordeal which I would not like to have repeated. My wife was beside herself with concern all during this experience.
My wife and son became seriously will with a respiratory infection and both had to be hospitalized. My son recovered and was released from the hospital after about 3 days. My wife's condition worsened. Her fever became very dangerously high and she was totally delirious. The doctor told me that he had tried everything. I made a suggestion of a drug that he might try. He saw no harm in using this drug which was successfully used in the treatment of Legionaire's disease. She recovered and later the doctor told me that my wife had almost died during her stay. (My acquaintance of this particular drug was merely happy circumstance, not some superior knowledge of pharmacy.)
I do not say that people should not use medical science. I say that they should not participate in fads. Fads are not good for your health.
major bean wrote: 2wlady, most of the time the hospital interferes with the birth process.
The "bonding" between the mother and child is horribly interrupted because of how the hospital separates the baby and mother. The "bond" is a chemical process released in the mother and is a biological tie between mother and baby. This is not just a fond experience that is akin to "male bonding". No, it is what is seen in the animal world that creates the extreme association of the pair.
The hospital takes the baby and removes it from the mother so that this bonding never happens. Only natural birth away from the "experts" will allow this strong bond to happen.
The urge to eat the childbirth is also chemically caused and is the natural scheme of things.
Painkillers and drugs are quite foreign to the nature of things.
Speaking as someone who helped his wife give birth in a teepee outside, 20+ years ago, and not in a hospital, how do you know what happens these days in a hospital??? Your information is obviously based on outdated, second-hand, inaccurate sources.
Right after I gave birth to my son, 8 years ago, they cleaned him up, recorded his Apgars, weighed him, then gave him to me within 5 minutes and he left my arms only to go to his father when I had to have an emergency D&C 3 hours after giving birth due to uncontrolled continued bleeding. He stayed with his father for the next 4 hours, then I got him back. He slept in a crib in our delivery room, I nursed him every 2 hours, and he never went to the nursery - which is still there as an option for mothers who need a break, but is absolutely not required to use. And that's how it still was in both hospitals that I toured when choosing a place to deliver his little sister 4 years later.
Painkillers are naturally occurring substances as well and there is nothing wrong with using them in moderation and with full informed consent of their effects, on both mother and baby.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
The medical community treats pregancy and childbirth as a disease. Our society considers that home birth is mother abuse and child abuse. If something were to go wrong with a home birth, i am quite sure that someone would end up in jail.
I am not against painkillers, except those associated with childbirth. Saddleblocks are more dangerous than the childbirth.
major bean wrote: The medical community treats pregancy and childbirth as a disease. Our society considers that home birth is mother abuse and child abuse. If something were to go wrong with a home birth, i am quite sure that someone would end up in jail.
Again, just your opinion.
I am not against painkillers, except those associated with childbirth. Saddleblocks are more dangerous than the childbirth.
Nice, thanks from all us mothers that we can have painkillers any other time in life except during childbirth when some of us are suffering some of the most intense pain of our lives.
If the pain becomes debilitating, and the mothers' stress hormones, blood pressure, heart rate, and eventually fear continue to elevate, causing a whole host of effects in the body, how is that beneficial to the baby? Wouldn't the benefits of the painkillers outweigh the consequences of the side effects more so than the consequences of the stress and fear? Why shouldn't mothers have access to drugs that can make childbirth a fully positive, pain-free, happy event f those drugs are relatively safe? Yes, they can depress heart rate and respiratory in babies, but really how many die from exposure to painkillers?
You people would not have made very good hippies.
Way to avoid addressing everything else I brought up though! :thumbsup:
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
If the pain becomes debilitating, and the mothers' stress hormones, blood pressure, heart rate, and eventually fear continue to elevate, causing a whole host of effects in the body, how is that beneficial to the baby? Wouldn't the benefits of the painkillers outweigh the consequences of the side effects more so than the consequences of the stress and fear? Why shouldn't mothers have access to drugs that can make childbirth a fully positive, pain-free, happy event f those drugs are relatively safe? Yes, they can depress heart rate and respiratory in babies, but really how many die from exposure to painkillers?
