One interesting side-effect to a planned c-section is that the hormones meant to shrink and tighten a uterus and birthcanal distended by birth still work. Obviously your uterus has to shrink, but your vagina and so on doesn’t–and it does anyway. Guess what this does for your sex life (well, once you’re healed and getting some sleep)?
On the whole, however, recovery from a good c-section is better IMO than a vaginal delivery that goes badly. I wouldn’t really know, never having given birth properly–but I had easy recoveries and didn’t have to worry about tearing, for example. OTOH my stomach muscles are a mess, what with the huge babies and the scars.
Then there’s my SIL–she had very serious placenta previa and had a c-section 3 weeks early. The anesthetic didn’t work properly, and she felt a lot of it.
I read an article last year which interviewed several NYC upper class women who had scheduled c-sections in their eighth month, to avoid gaining too much weight. I was disgusted.
Thinking about it, it was 11 hours into an induced labor, and the kid wasn’t dropping at all. He was also two weeks overdue and labor was induced over concerns that he might come out of the oven a bit overdone. Came out fine via C-section.
I realized that in China/HK/Taiwan that a lot of the c-sections are schedule to coincide with a fortune tellers reading for the “best” zodiac time to be born under. These are broken up by day and 2 hour segments. So you’ll have c sections done a 2:00 am on xx day because that’s the “lucky birth hour” window before the natural due date.
My wife looked into the that but there were no lucky times in the window. I suggested since a c-section was highly recommended (twins and twin B in breech position) that we do it on the monday morning at the end of Dec so I could use up my vacation time for the year (the timing was sometime during that week). But the best laid plans of mice and men were thwarted when the twins decided to come even earlier on Christmas eve, and too quickly to prep for a c section.
On the one hand my wife was glad that it was the natural delivery that she wanted. On the other, we almost lost the youngest twin Serena (who at 6 months has very minimal complications that continue to fade).
Having read Ginger’s article, I’m kind of horrified about these women obsessing over weight gain while pregnant. And having an 8-month c-section for cosmetic reasons–all that kind of thing strikes me as horribly selfish. Becoming a mother requires some sacrifice of a great body, personal time, and generally putting oneself first. People who aren’t up for that shouldn’t decide to start families; pregnancy just doesn’t fit into that picture, and that’s just the beginning.
As someone who has done 495,786,267 kegels since the birth of my daughter and still need to change underwear when I sneeze - and whose girlfriends report both the same level of incontinence and success with kegels - I have my doubts that incontenece is uncommon or that kegels usually help.
I have no data outside anecdotal, but I’ve had three c-sections* and WoooHooo, I was lactating like…well, you know the drill.
Seriously, I had excellent milk production with all three cesarean born children. Also, to be honest, I was grateful for the post surgical strictures on my movements after the birth. It meant I had folks waiting hand and foot on me and baby for almost 6 weeks! All I had to do was breastfeed the baby and read!
*Child 1: transverse breech, child 2: him-large head & me-small pelvis, child 3: better safe than sorry on the uterine rupture…and it was close. My uterus was tearing from irregular contractions as she went in to do the c-section.
Is this true for all? Or were there complications in this case. If it were true I would suspect that c-sections would be the default and vaginal birth would only be done under extreme circumstances.
I know shit-all about pregnancy, but this isn’t true. I was born caesarian, and my younger sister was born vaginally. I’m 26 and my sister is 21, so I don’t think anyone was using any new techniques.
Planned c-sections are also somewhat common for women who are group B strep-positive so that the baby doesn’t have to pass through the birth canal, risking infection. I discussed this with my OB, who told me that he’s done this when women are GBS-positive and allergic to multiple antibiotics. Since I’m only allergic to penicillin, there were others I could tolerate, and thus no need for a c-section, although the labor and delivery would be closely managed.
Sorry, but 26 and 21 are “new” in the history of c-sections. I should have been more clear in my wording. I meant “newer” as in “newer than the old lateral (vertical) cut,” not “newer than Britney Spears.”
Yay! That’s so wonderful! (WhyNot says enviously, checking the mailbox again for her supply of Domperidone.)
Here’s a page with an exhausting article on the possible pitfalls of breastfeeding post c-section, suggestions on how to avoid them and a fantabulous references and resources section at the bottom, grouped by topic.
Oh, okay. Remember when I said I knew shit-all about pregnancy? Yeah. I have definitely encountered people who think its impossible in all cases, though, and are disbelieving when I tell them nope, my mom did it.
Back when I was having my babies - all of 19-15 years ago, VBACs were back in full force. Compared to today, it seems like that was a very political time - there were a lot of books decrying the medicalization of birth, such as Cohen’s The Silent Knife and lots of other stuff out there on non-medicated, natural, and home birth. Maybe it’s because I don’t spend much time talking to others who are pregnant or with newborns, but that seems to have died down a great amount. From talking to all the new mothers at work (Just about all of whom have the “Drug me in the hospital parking lot” attitude ), I get the impression that we are back to the 1950’s model of doctor knows best.
As near as I can tell, what has changed from then and now is how medical people deal with risk. Back then, the risk of an adverse event in 1 in 10,000 live births was seen as too small to even worry about. Now it’s not. The injunction about only having VBAC’s at hospitals with full time emergency capabilities is not because women’s incisions are any more prone to rupture than they ever were - it’s because the medical community views that risk of rupture in a different light.
I had two C-sections. Both for “failure to progress” after 3 hours of stage II labor. In both cases I was told that my 7 pounds and change babies were too large to fit through my pelvis (and I’m not a small person by any stretch). After some reading on positions, options, etc. I now think they were both unneccesary. When I went to my first doctor’s visit when I was pregnant with my third, the first thing out of my doctor’s mouth was “It’s pretty obvious that you can’t have babies vaginally, why don’t we schedule a C-section right now?” This was before a due date had even been established. When I asked about my other options the doctor turned nasty. She told me there were none, and that if I don’t get cut my baby will die and rot out. (Her exact words). That doctor was fired, and I became politicized - and eventually found a practice of nurse midwives who would help deliver naturally (but at a big hospital with M.D. back-up). As it turned out, I never got there - my 9 pound boy was born vaginally in my bedroom after a total of 1hr 45 minutes of labor.
I know all the “As long as you get a healthy baby…yada yada yada” and absolutely that’s what’s most important. But I also know that I would have felt like a lesser person if I had believed the physicians and truely thought that my pelvis was too small to allow 7 pound babies to be birthed naturally. In terms of recovery (including resuming comfortable sex) there was no comparison - the vaginal birth was much, much better.
