I was born by Caesarian incision, as were my brothers. An increasing number of mothers opt for this method today.
I’ve often wondered if I’ve somehow missed something by not being born in the old-fashioned way. On then other hand, it seems that being squeezed out that way must be awfully traumatic and perhaps dangerous.
So what’s the straight dope? Are there any medical or psychological disadvantages, or advantages, to being born in this way?
The increasing incidence of Caesareans is described here as the “too posh to push” phenomenon.
I bet that the journalist who came up with that one was a man… 
I seriously doubt that there are any adverse psychological effects resulting from being born via caesarian. Apparently being born through the birth canal (the Front Door), instead of through the Side Entrance, helps to stimulate a baby’s lungs. But I doubt that the health of the average Caesar baby is any better or worse than that of the average Front Door baby. And caesarians can often save babies from brain-damage or death.
Under normal circumstances, a vaginal birth is better for both mother and baby. But not all circumstances are normal. That’s when a C-section can be life-saving.
As Sarah Woodruff said, being squeezed through the birth canal helps clear the baby’s lungs. Babies in utero “breathe” in amniotic fluid, and need to get this out of the lungs quickly when they find themselves on the outside and need to breathe oxygen. Babies who come through the main entrance have most of it squeezed out along the way; babies who are evacuated via an emergency escape hatch need to get it out themselves (or with help from the appropriate medical professional). That’s an added stress at what is already a very stressful time for a tiny body.
When a C-section is performed for medical reasons, it’s assumed that the doctor has weighed the risks and benefits and found that a C-section is the safer option. (Indeed, in some cases, such as placenta praevia, it’s the only safe option.) The controversy about purely elective C-sections is that the risks of the operation give no obvious benefit.
A few women I’ve talked to have been under the impression that recovery after a section is easier than recovery after a normal birth. Each woman and each birth is different, of course, but for most women it’s the opposite. After a vaginal birth, once you’re out of the recovery room, the worst is usually over. After a section, it’s just beginning…
Having done both, I can attest that the recovery from a C-section is much, much more difficult than recovering from a vaginal birth.
Actually, I found the exact opposite to be true.
Dweezil was born after 15 hours of induced labor, with a non-functioning epidural; ultimately they had to use forceps, which resulted in an episiotomy and a 3rd degree tear. It was over two weeks before I could sit up easily - had to take my meals with my legs and back draped over the arms of an easy chair, for example. I used Tylenol 3 (tylenol with codeine) for most of a week.
Moon Unit was born via c-section (when they decided she had to be born now she was breech so they unzipped me). Epidural didn’t work too well then, either :eek: but the painful part only lasted 10 minutes. Obviously I didn’t have the tearing issues. I was up on my feet as soon as they determined it wouldn’t kill me, about 18 hours after she was born. And though I wasn’t exactly ready to play basketball or do stomach crunches, I was in far less pain. I took precisely one dose of a narcotic pain reliever, while I was still in the ICU.
If that c-section had been an emergency one (as in, “get baby out now or she’ll die”, versus “get baby out some time today or Mom might die”) the recovery might have been harder; as it was, the doctor had time to do things with some care, and not do any more damage than was strictly necessary.
So OK, maybe my experiences weren’t typical… but basically “good c-section” beats “horrible vaginal” in my book any day of the week 
Epidurals lengthen labor. They slow the move through the canal so you get more coning of the head. You also have a greater risk of infection transfer to the infant, and more risk of the baby getting stuck on the way out. Infants can be less alert just after birth too so you may not get the benefit of immediate nursing etc. So comparing what is ideal, you need to think about c-section vs. epidural vs. no drugs. Everything has its risks both to mom and baby.
I must say that recovery from birth even with a third degree tear was much easier than I expected. I had no drugs and so my daughter was born quickly. The doctor said she looked like a c-section baby and had no coning etc. She had apgars of 9 and nursed for 45 minutes of the first hour of her life.
An aquaintance of mine had a c-section just after I had my baby. There is little doubt that had she waited for nature to act her baby would have been much worse off. Her baby had no vernix, was large, and pooing when they pulled her out of her mother. She looked a week old. Had she waited it was likely the baby would have been breathing poo in utero.
Actually, I seem to recall reading that it was coined by midwives.