Monday, December 21, 2009

it's official. many people think natural birth refers only to the baby coming out of the vagina.

should i clarify?  maybe this will help illustrate my point...

i was reading a little story in us magazine (ok, yes, if a rag mag is in front of me, i read it) where that chic kendra, hef's ex-girlfriend, was talking about how she was really hoping for a natural birth (which of course made me go, "hmmm...naw.").  well, she talks about how after hours of being induced with pitocin, she starts realizing that she's probably not going to have a natural birth (which of course made me go, "um, doesn't natural birth mean no drugs?").  she ended up in with c-section.

twice in the last year, i have had dads say to me, "yeah, my wife had a natural birth." and i go "oh cool!  really?!"---then about 2 minutes later it comes out that since the baby was not a c-section, he called it a natural birth.  and in fact his wife had an epidural and then some....

it seems like since c-sections are so common now (1 in 3 births), people are calling vaginal births natural births.  does this mean we have to be more specific and call what used to be called a natural birth an unmedicated birth?

No comments:

Post a Comment