|
I tried earnestly to read all the posts before I gave my answer, but my fear of forgetting my point overrode my patience.
I don't agree with the free-birthing concept for two reasons.
One - As many have argued, women gave birth at home since we've been giving birth. However, in times gone past, women often assisted with other births of neighbors and family members, and they learned from these experiences what spelled trouble, and what the experience is like. These days, the first live birth a woman will attend will be her own. They have no idea what and can go wrong, and what the warning factors are.
Two - Women gave birth unassisted in the past because they had no other choice. They didn't have treatment for cancer then either, but that doesn't mean someone with cancer today should forego treatment just because that is what was done in the past. If anything happened to my child to cause physical or mental impairment that could have been avoided by timely medical intervention I would never forgive myself. You can call 911 all you want, but if your baby is without oxygen for more than a few minutes, brain damage begins. I wouldn't bet on an ambulance getting there in time and able to prevent death.
I'm also going to add that I would have lost my daughter if I wasn't in the hospital, and had my labor induced. Waiting for mother nature meant fetal distress and possible oxygen deprivation.
I myself would have died from blood loss when I lost my child halfway through my third pregnancy, if I hadn't been able to access a hospital.
If I had been a pioneer woman, my child and I would have hand-dug graves in the back acre. If I had to choose, I'd choose the scenario in which both my children and I are alive and healthy. Enough goes wrong in life without pushing the envelope. There's enough sorrow without looking for it.
__________________
I am not bound to please thee with my answers.
William Shakespeare
|