Sometimes you need a c-section to get the baby out, if there are medical issues. Like with any major surgery, there are always risks.

My mother almost had to get one, as I was a month late and had issues getting me out.

For sure not unless it's medically necessary. My Conor would have died if we didn't. Cord was wrapped twice around his neck.

I was born via C-section.

Quote from Popadibs

I was born via C-section.

So was I, but that still doesn't make it any safer.



"Unless it's a medical emergency...." It will always be a "medical emergency". I'm not putting Kelly's situation aside, but the medical industry is an industry. The people at the top and those who sell to the professionals are all interested in the money that can be made from it. The patients' safety? Only as long as they can continue getting your money.

The point is that to stay healthy, stay away from those who get rich from you being unhealthy.

Medical insurance and big pharma. A deadly combination.

There is another angle here in need of exploring.

We all know the nurses do all the work, and whether the record says it or not, make most of the decisions. Of all those C-sections, how many were performed after a team made up of nurses and nurse-midwives who also work in abortion clinics, made the recommendation to the doctors to go ahead with the procedure?

Three years before my son was born, such a nurse/midwife team, literally right across the street from the big abortion mill on the same street as the hospital in (The People's Republic of) Boulder, Colorado was in charge of the care in a prior pregnancy. They performed several routine examinations on my ex during a NINE-WEEK period that she was carrying a dead fetus and they never even noticed it. When they finally got it right and gave us the tragic news, the spokesbutcher of the crew literally couldn't seem to grasp the language needed to discuss the end of a life, because that was not how she saw it when she worked across the street on elective procedures with the same objective, the end of a life.

When she was pregnant with my son, my ex, heavily influenced by her liberal, single mom, multi-abortion friends, actually used the same team. After a routine pregnancy and a good start into the labor process, the witches from the mill came in and started pushing the regular hospital staff aside and giving orders left and right. The whole thing was about the mother's comfort, and the child's welfare didn't seem much of an issue. At one point the real medical people had to intervene as these death-dealing charlatans had allowed the fetal heart rate to drop to dangerously low levels after giving the mother every drug and device they had in the closet to make her relax.

After three days of failure to dilate, the abortion clinic staffers gave up and turned it over to the doctors for the C-section.

Everything went fine and I have a healthy son but watching these people at work, trying to rationalize bringing life on one side of the street with destroying it on the other, was chilling, not to mention their scarcely concealed hatred for me as the perpetrator/father that had put this poor victim/mother in their care to begin with.

That was the same town where the hip local women's clinic misdiagnosed my ex's appendicitis for two weeks until she was 48 hrs from death by abdominal infection.

Combining feminist amorality and political agitation with health care environments is vicious, irresponsible and dangerous. But they will even use people's lives and safety as a billboard to post their agenda and their socioeconomic theories at every opportunity. Letting these people, who make their living considering new lives optional and helping in their destruction, get anywhere near the living is just putting one's life in the hands of those who won't even admit that an unborn child is a life at all.

(It may or may not mean anything but the all-female team that almost killed my son knew all along that he was a boy. Their emphasis on the mother's comfort above all else seemed out of balance at the time, but it makes more sense now that I have more experience with being in the talons of feminism and have seen just how hard-hearted their world view really is. In their reality, they weren't caring for two patients, they were treating a victim with a parasitic infection.)

It is a very good thing that homeopathics and herbal medicine and naural healing and even natural childbirth have begun to broaden out beyond the confines of the college towns and the liberal intelligentsia to where real people can actually benefit from them. But when it comes to OB/GYN issues, and this is as misogynistic as it gets, ladies: every pregnant woman is at risk that those caring for her have among their ranks people who think they believe that an elective abortion is a health care event, and who can't or won't state with clinical accuracy when a human life begins.

Is there anybody here who went to high school in the 70s that remembers playing "lifeboat"?

Only so much water, some are old and sick, pregnant lady, etc, and the class debates who gets thrown overboard and who keeps their place on the boat by making value assessments on the worth of each life? Ring a bell?

Do the math. That is the generation in charge of health care today. With the prices they charge and the way they are so above accountability, it's clear the pack of them have decided who is to live and who gets to be shark bait.

my wife has a narrow pelvic girdle and we would have lost our daughter and maybe I would've lost my wife without a C section needs must when the devil drives

Yeah, a c-section is surgery, and surgery always has this risk. But women who need to deliver by C-section or else they will die, well - they die.

Still. These days a lod of women do not want to deliver vaginally so as to keep it tight. So yeah, it's unnecessary in those cases. Arguably, doing a c-section for that reason is unethical.

Quote from MrWombat

Still. These days a lod of women do not want to deliver vaginally so as to keep it tight. So yeah, it's unnecessary in those cases. Arguably, doing a c-section for that reason is unethical.

Yea it seems to be gaining momentum with some people opting for it above vaginal childbirth. Fools! Medical professionals as well shouldn't be encouraging it as a more favourable option.

They should try talking to people who have had it done. One of our friends needed on in an emergency and she was so ill, even a year later, she couldn't lift much, etc etc. If some women knew what pain and damage it does, cutting through all that tissue, they would just squeeze the kid out and do a few pelvic floor exercises.

This stuff is not political. It's highly personal and very sensitive.
A few examples.

Decades ago, my British wife delivered two children naturally (in rapid succession) but suffered an injury to her back while they were young.
When she became pregnant again (by lying about contraception for the second time). Doctors advised that normal labour could leave her severly disabled. A C-section solved the problem. Result- bright young daughter.

Senior Asian wife (while in UK and despite approved medical care from female health workers) delivered a stillborn son. When she was pregnant again with twins, a Senior Consultant was put on the case, assisted by an African obstretician who definitely knew his stuff (the NHS was feeling paranoid?)
She grew enormous like a female elephant. A C-section before due date delivered two healthy fraternal twin boys. But the delivery room was awash with blood and fluid. As a former farmer I was used to that stuff but that was a real eye-opener.

Then, Junior Asian wife falls pregnant. Doctors advise a strict diet. She doesn't stick to it (well, she has a western husband feeding her) and the baby grows to a monstrous 9lb 7oz. or thereabouts. Thats far too big for Asian pussy. So, after a painful and futile labour, it's C-section once again.

Of my six wonderful kids, four are still alive because of C-section.

my wife has a narrow pelvic girdle and we would have lost our daughter and maybe I would've lost my wife without a C section needs must when the devil drives.

With you there Shazzam. If modern western medicine, paid for by modern western men, and practised by modern western men did not exist, it would be back to the jungle and witch doctors.
The corruption of western medicine by vested interests is a different argument that's more central to American politics.

Meanwhile, I have my amazing kids. Every one of them came at a cost. But they know that and their mothers know it too. 'Alhamdulillah!'

Wise and well-informed as always, YanYan.

You reinforce my whole point in discussing gender matters of any sort, that they are not by nature political but only made so by vested interests with profit-making or social engineering agendas or both. They impose the politics into what for ordinary people is the everyday struggle between mundane life requirements and the tremendous unknowns we all have to confront at any moment.

Politicizing any of these issues just puts at risk each person, each couple, each family, trying to make decisions that are not about causes or making a better world or seeking justice for the downtrodden or any other construct of big-picture altruism, that making these decisions will have to be done in an adversarial environment rather than a cooperative one.

Men need women. Women need men. The idea of total segregation may be the luxury of bachelors, widows and gays, but is certainly not a serious proposal on any large scale, and those advancing it don't seem particularly serious about anything but vindicating their own anger. So we must coexist. Men can't remove or even very well mitigate the challenges that women face just being female, and women can't just by having it explained to them or legislated and litigated on them, understand that men are as worthily human as they are and that we face challenges they haven't a clue about.

We will never see through each other's eyes, men and women. But a full-scale assault on the very concept of common ground between us is no answer, and that is why I began to oppose feminist dogma as soon as life revealed to me enough cribs with which to decode it.

Feminism is a cynical, calculating seizure of that common ground by propagandists, advertisers and political operatives, issuing nonstop (like the old Soviet home radio sets with one state channel and no "OFF" switch) an expanding, self-referential and allegedly self-justifying declaration that men have no legitimate rights or authority within it.

And that is also why I want nothing to do with any men's "movement" if its direction, rhetoric and actions are designed to further alienate, rather than strive to reunite, the two legitimate, deserving, necessary, God-given halves of the human family.

In my own testimonial above, my memory of the role played by openly supremist, anti-life practitioners of obstetrics is that they were essentially conducting a guerilla war from within the health care field, that preserving and protecting unborn life was at best a politically optional consideration and not an unbreakable code of professional honor, and that their influence on the perfectly legitimate and successful option of a C-section was not an outcome of their success but an expression of their failure to uphold the universal rule of human health intervention: FIRST DO NO HARM.

It is no denunciation of women generally to say, this kind of activist/practitioners operating openly in a profession sworn to protect life and health need to be identified as the dangerous quacks and the public threat that they are and removed from the profession because they make it worse for everyone, beginning with pregnant women and their unborn children.