|
ChloroformSeduction posted:Anyway, back to the point - when you're comparing apples to apples - that is, healthy, term babies, c-section ones do better. I'd be really interested to see the sources that led you to this conclusion. I've not come across evidence of this in the OB/GYN journals I've seen and read. To my knowledge, there isn't a whole lot of research on CDMR because it simply hasn't been an option for very long (and still isn't, for many women), and the outcomes for babies and mothers delivered/delivering via c-section writ large are comparable with or less favorable than vaginal deliveries - especially when it comes to subsequent pregnancies/deliveries. Moreover, it would seem extraordinarily difficult or even impossible to establish a causative link between elective c-section and positive neonatal and maternal outcomes, considering the socioeconomic status of women to whom it is even presented as an option.
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 15:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 22:47 |
|
|
Tourette Meltdown posted:and while I can take up to 12 weeks maternity leave, I'd rather take just six. Unless it's for financial reasons, I'd highly recommend taking all 12 weeks if you can. So many things can arise when you're a new parent and it's nice to not have to stress about work stuff earlier than necessary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 15:29
|
|
|
Tourette Meltdown posted:Basically this whole time I've been certain I'm actually two weeks further along than my OB says (I am), and sure that I'll give birth at the end of September, not mid-October... but, uh, actually I hope they're right and I don't go til mid-October, for purely selfish reasons. The childcare place we chose doesn't have a place for us until December, and while I can take up to 12 weeks maternity leave, I'd rather take just six. I might email the childcare center just in case. Now that the nursery's finished and we're just waiting around, I'm finding all kinds of new things to worry about! Just a heads up that the first six weeks are absolutely the most difficult and going back to work that early may not seem so appealing once baby arrives.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 15:31
|
|
|
Dr. Octagon posted:I'd be really interested to see the sources that led you to this conclusion. I've not come across evidence of this in the OB/GYN journals I've seen and read I'd also be interested in seeing sources.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
bamzilla posted:Unless it's for financial reasons, I'd highly recommend taking all 12 weeks if you can. So many things can arise when you're a new parent and it's nice to not have to stress about work stuff earlier than necessary. Financial and family - my dad's had several bouts with cancer over the past five years, most recently throat cancer. It would be my ultimate nightmare for something horrible to happen and me to be left without any leave. We don't get separate maternity leave here unfortunately - so that six weeks is coming out of my FMLA. Luckily, something about being pregnant has totally destroyed my ability to stress about work stuff in the first place!
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
I have experienced both a very "natural" birth (no meds except some gas) and a medicated birth (epidural). I didn't have any specific plan for either other than "take epidural if it gets too bad" and "make baby exit my body". First birth was very textbook, I wanted the epidural at one point but it was too late, almost time to push. Absolutely no complications, minor tearing. Second baby was breech and I had also had my membranes stripped to induce labor (two weeks past due date), which made me puke the entire day - so when labor started I was exhausted and dehydrated and had a fever. Took epidural to be able to preserve some energy and get some food in me. I'm happy with both births, but I think the "natural" one was a better "experience", just because I liked better being able to walk around, change positions etc. I don't feel like an "earth mother" and I certainly don't view it as an achievement that makes me better than other women. It's just my preference. Absolute Evil and chloroformseduction have mentioned other people assuming cesarean sections are done for "illegitimate" reasons. I find that strange. If one of my friends has a c section I don't generally assume much at all about their reasons. edit: ChloroformSeduction, what is ICAN? bilabial trill fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Jul 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
I think because the c-section rate is so much higher in the US than it is anywhere else in the world, people assume that some portion of these are medically unnecessary. It would be a very difficult problem to suss out on an individual basis because you can't know after-the-fact whether that c-section would have been a successful v-birth. But whether it's technological advancement that makes surgery less risky, hospital overcrowding/understaffing that makes L&R's less patient, billing/liability issues associated with the American healthcare system, or (in my opinion the least likely) an American cultural aversion to natural birth, something is driving the rate of c-section here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
Papercut posted:I think because the c-section rate is so much higher in the US than it is anywhere else in the world, people assume that some portion of these are medically unnecessary. It would be a very difficult problem to suss out on an individual basis because you can't know after-the-fact whether that c-section would have been a successful v-birth. But whether it's technological advancement that makes surgery less risky, hospital overcrowding/understaffing that makes L&R's less patient, billing/liability issues associated with the American healthcare system, or (in my opinion the least likely) an American cultural aversion to natural birth, something is driving the rate of c-section here. C-section rate in the US is about 30% - actually about the same as rates in other developed countries. China and Italy are higher at 40%+. The problem is that you CAN'T know if a woman could have had a safe VB, there are risks either way. Mortality rates with c-sections are about 30% higher than VB, but it's really difficult to compare when the c-section group contains a lot of women who are sick or have serious medical issues. The rate of c-sections has increased something like four-fold since the 70s, but we have better technology to monitor babies and mothers, too, so more problems are being caught before they can turn into huge issues. Anyway I just think it's weird that people vilify c-sections and women who have them. It's your body, your baby, so do whatever. EDIT: I remembered I wanted to say something about "billing/liability issues associated with the American healthcare system" - it is absolutely not this. Hospitals don't perform a procedure if there's any doubt it can be done safely, and billing has less than nothing to do with medical care. Overcrowding/understaffing could be a factor, though. A c-section takes a lot less time in the surgical suite than a VB does in the birthing room. Tourette Meltdown fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Jul 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
I feel like increased induction rates may be somewhat behind it as well, because it seems like there is a weird push to induce women before their bodies are ready. A close friend was just induced for absolutely no reason at all at 37 weeks, and surprise! It didn't work. Obviously that's entirely anecdotal, but of my real-world friends who have had c-sections, I think 2 were NOT because of failed inductions. Overall I feel that the US in general has an issue caring properly for pregnant women and then families postbirth. Prenatal care/giving birth is outrageously expensive, insurance loving sucks, and our family leave policies are horrible. Like you should not have to choose between taking maternity leave and being with a dying family member (just to point out a recent example posted). I went back to work at 8 weeks because I hadn't been with the company long enough to qualify for STD, and I was barely coherent for a month. Because I had exhausted all of my earned sick time/vacation time (required before FMLA kicks in) that whole year I couldn't take any time off at all to spend with my family either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
Tourette Meltdown posted:C-section rate in the US is about 30% - actually about the same as rates in other developed countries. According to this, the US C section rate is above average for OECD countries: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/...eType=text/html
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
Tourette Meltdown posted:EDIT: I remembered I wanted to say something about "billing/liability issues associated with the American healthcare system" - it is absolutely not this. Hospitals don't perform a procedure if there's any doubt it can be done safely, and billing has less than nothing to do with medical care. Overcrowding/understaffing could be a factor, though. A c-section takes a lot less time in the surgical suite than a VB does in the birthing room. You would like to believe this, and it is likely true on the whole, but it is absolutely not a given: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/07/business/hospital-chain-internal-reports-found-dubious-cardiac-work.html?pagewanted=all In terms of liability, the "procedure" in this case is allowing a woman to labor naturally. The level of uncertainty associated with the c-section is much smaller than that associated with allowing a woman to labor for hours on end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
I can't offer any insight into the c-section chat, since my brain is not working. This is almost entirely due to the fact that my boyfriend came to bed at 2am after a boozy night and snored his rear end off, with breaks only to blow feral beer breath in my face. I start work at 5:30am but I have been awake since he came to bed. I am in the second trimester and seem to have given up on sleep already as it is, so to be woken early after managing to fall asleep at all is so unjustified. Will a judge be kind to me when I murder him if I play them a recording of his snoring?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 19:12
|
|
|
Twatty Seahag posted:I feel like increased induction rates may be somewhat behind it as well, because it seems like there is a weird push to induce women before their bodies are ready. A close friend was just induced for absolutely no reason at all at 37 weeks, and surprise! It didn't work. Obviously that's entirely anecdotal, but of my real-world friends who have had c-sections, I think 2 were NOT because of failed inductions. I think that induction rates have a lot to do with it as well. When you're trying to schedule maternity leave with an employer who wants plenty of time to prepare for your absence, plus weighing how soon before giving birth you feel comfortable or are safely able to work, and reconciling that with your rate of pay during leave, it's a really attractive option when your doctor says "we can bring you in to induce you on this day." Combine that with the fact that lots of people think that a due date, instead of an estimate, is somehow a way that modern medical science can pinpoint the exact day you should give birth some 36 weeks in the future. Even if you're prepared to wait for spontaneous labor, heaven forbid you should actually go past your due date, because then you are accosted by every person you know asking you "hey have you had that baby yet???  "
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
annaconda posted:I can't offer any insight into the c-section chat, since my brain is not working. I would have asked my husband to sleep on the couch in that situation. Not in a mean way, but just "hey, it's really hard for me to sleep when you come home late and have been drinking". New Weave Wendy posted:heaven forbid you should actually go past your due date, because then you are accosted by every person you know asking you "hey have you had that baby yet??? Yeah that is a universal thing. I went to 41 weeks 4 days with my son and 42 weeks with my daughter and people would not shut the gently caress up about HAVE YOU HAD THAT BABBY YET HERP DERP. I wanted to murder everyone in the entire world. bilabial trill fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Jul 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
Oh I did. He was so drunk he forgot. There will be words had later, heaven help him. I will be writing this down and using it to my advantage when it's time to change the baby in the middle of the night.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
Twatty Seahag posted:I feel like increased induction rates may be somewhat behind it as well, because it seems like there is a weird push to induce women before their bodies are ready. My SIL chose to be induced a few days before her due date (she probably would've gone so far over that they would've had to induce anyway) because she wanted her daughter to be born on her parents' anniversary. She was in labor for something like 40 hours, I think. My insurance is actually awesome! But everything else blows. I would absolutely lose my job if I took all 12 weeks then something came up. It's just completely not an option in my situation - but if I didn't have other people/issues to worry about, I'd take 12 weeks. rectal cushion posted:According to this, the US C section rate is above average for OECD countries: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/...eType=text/html I only compared huge countries like the US, UK, and China, so you've got me there. Lots of smaller countries have much more focused, developed healthcare systems, and fewer c-sections. Papercut posted:You would like to believe this, and it is likely true on the whole, but it is absolutely not a given: "For-profit hospitals" make me cringe. I work for a major teaching/state hospital and it's seriously unthinkable that anything like that could happen in this sort of environment. I forget that a lot of people don't live 2 miles away from four major hospital systems like I do. As far as labor as a procedure, that's the same situation - a (reputable) hospital would never let a woman labor for hours if there was any doubt about her safety, they would perform a c-section. I think there can be a risk of physicians jumping to the c-section overenthusiastically, but again you really can't know whether or not a woman could have had a safe v-birth. Better safe than sorry, and a lot of doctors are MUCH more comfortable with a sedated patient in surgery than a stressed out woman in pain for hours.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
Call me an rear end in a top hat but I really take issue with the characterization of anyone opposed to a completely elective c-section as some irrational ~earth mother~ and the idea of a preference for a particular sort of birth experience to be some weird hippie thing. If you want to elect to have a c section for reasons that are ultimately just rationalizations rather than actual reasons, that is your right and I support your freedom to choose to do that 100%. But just as women who DO care about their birth experience have been characterized in this thread as overly emotional nutjobs, I'm gonna go ahead and say that yeah it seems like you're more concerned about the state of your vagina and sex life rather than the best possible outcome you and for your child. Tossing out things like infection after c-section and saying "oh it's rare though" but being worried about bowel incontinence after a vaginal delivery is bizarre. Guess which incident is more likely to happen and more likely to threaten your life. I gave birth vaginally after having gone into labor on my own on my due date. I labored for 12 hours and my son was delivered with forceps because I was fortunate enough to have an OB who was fully trained in their use and therefore didn't rush to perform a C section. I had zero expectations of what birth was going to be like and I was pleasantly surprised to find out that, at least for me, it wasn't so difficult. I didn't desire a particular ~experience~ but all in all I am glad I had the one I did and I really can't imagine being so blasé about giving birth because it truly is a big drat deal. It's only the beginning of the whole adventure, but for me and my husband it certainly was not "just another day."
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
Schweig und tanze posted:Call me an rear end in a top hat but I really take issue with the characterization of anyone opposed to a completely elective c-section as some irrational ~earth mother~ and the idea of a preference for a particular sort of birth experience to be some weird hippie thing. Seriously, there's really no reason to judge someone either way. I'll own right up and say I care more about my own experience with anesthetics than I do the birth experience - if I'm going to be puking for a week anyway, I want it done with quickly instead of spending hours in labor THEN puking for a week. The only person who really has any right to judge you on what kind of birth you choose to have is you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
~hugs mama~
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
This is Isla Sif, goons. She was born on June 21st (the solstice!) I was a classic impatient first timer and got induced at 41w3d. I was gaining five pounds a week, my blood pressure was 30 points higher than normal and my midwife gave me the go-ahead. Did a foley bulb overnight in the hospital with a very low pit drip early in the morning. 21 hours of labor later (including some time in the tub, yay!), I thought I was at transition. I was shaking and miserable and was sure that pushing must be right around the corner...but it turns out I was just tired and wussy and the midwife figured I was still several hours away. So even though it went against the plan (many tears were shed), I got an epidural. It numbed everything but a little section of my butt, so I could still feel contractions (though it was a cakewalk in comparison to the full-body kind). An hour later, the midwife came to check me and found the top of my daughter's head peeking out of my lady bits. 4 pushes and she was out with an Apgar score of 9 and then 10 (she was breathing and yelling the minute her head was out). I think she's wonderful. Breastfeeding is lovely and time-consuming and difficult. She was 7lb8oz at birth and 2+ weeks later she's still only 7lb5oz so we're still in the midst of that nonsense. But! All is well. Midnight Science fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Jul 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 21:11
|
|
|
rectal cushion posted:
I've had several assholes presume to tell me I took the easy way out by having sections. My reasoning (taking the doctor's advice and making informed decisions) were blown off as wussing out because I didn't want my precious vagina stretched out. I get a little excited when the subject of sections come up. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
Hey all--I didn't read the whole thread and let me know if this isn't appropriate here! I'm really, really on the fence about having a kid. I am 28, married, and husband and I both have good jobs (I am a teacher and I am starting at a different school next month, while he is in the Army). So I still have "time" I guess. But, right now, I don't really want one. Is there a point where, for you guys, a switch went off and you were ready? The reasons I don't want one are: -Since we both work, we have money to do things like travel and buy toys, and if I had a kid I want to stay home rather than pay for childcare (the money I make at work isn't enough that childcare would be worthwhile, so yeah). That would mean no more toys for us, or travel, until the kid was school age and I could go back to work. I don't know if I'm un-selfish enough to give these things up temporarily. I love scuba diving but I couldn't do that at all the whole time I'm pregnant. I like having a beer or a glass of wine with dinner and I couldn't. You know? -If my husband gets out of the Army, his only skill set is restaurant work (since he's been a cook in the Army) and in the civilian sector that's traditionally no benefits and not much pay, so then we're looking at me working for health insurance for the whole family, and consequently, my checks would only be about $1,200 per month if I had to cover my husband plus baby, and that's not enough to live on honestly--obviously I'm assuming the worst case here (that my husband doesn't or can't re-enlist, or he gets med boarded without a pension, we aren't sure yet) -I'm afraid that our kid will have a lifelong, expensive, chronic condition (see my first point about enjoying travel and toys). I know this can be ruled out by having testing beforehand, but still... -Mostly, I'm just afraid we can't afford it. We have very little debt--one credit card with a $4,000 balance that we will be paying off soon and $1,800 remaining on a student loan. That's it. Our cars are paid off and because of this we can save quite a bit while also having a lot of fun. I feel like we'd be really living on a shoe string if I either stay home with a little one or pay for childcare (which I've read can be as expensive or even more expensive than a mortgage payment). However, I do feel like if we are going to try for one, we should do so while my husband is still in the Army, because then all medical things with the pregnancy will be 100% free, and if there are any complications we won't have to deal with crippling medical debt from it. I am covered by both Blue Cross and Tricare (the Army) so I pay nothing OOP for any medical stuff right now. Blue Cross pays first, then Tricare picks up all the Blue Cross copays and deductibles. But I do feel a lot of uncertainty about what my husband will do if he gets out of the military to bring home some income, because he isn't a "college" person at all for the GI bill, and we aren't sure how much, if anything, he will get for service-related medical problems. TL;DR: I guess I'm the most worried about the financial aspects: baby stuff, maternity clothes, then after he/she pops out, paying for them from age 0 to 18. And slightly worried about losing freedom to travel at will and come and go as I/we please. The whole adjustment of suddenly being a parent really scares me.  Edit: The one reason I *do* want a kid is to have someone to inherit what we have someday. I'm an only child myself, and my only relative I'm close with is my dad because my mom died last year. On my husband's side, they would squander any inheritance in about two seconds, so I wouldn't want to leave it to them, but I don't want it to go to the government, and on my mom's side of the family, I cut them all out after a huge family disagreement about my mom's end of life care and funeral, so I guess my one reason is to make sure I have at least ONE person to give property and cash to in the future. Hip Hoptimus Prime fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Jul 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 00:25
|
|
|
If you don't want a baby, please don't have one. If the thought of not being able to have a beer or go scuba diving makes you not want to have a baby, PLEASE don't have one. I didn't want a baby when I was 28 either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
Papercut posted:If you don't want a baby, please don't have one. If the thought of not being able to have a beer or go scuba diving makes you not want to have a baby, PLEASE don't have one. I didn't want a baby when I was 28 either. ^ I agree. But is there a time when a switch would go off and you feel ready? At this point I feel like I/we will never be ready!
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
It was the moment I stepped into my first couples dinner party. j/k There was no specific moment for me, but I'm a dad so I hadn't thought about it as much. But most people change a lot between their late 20s and early-mid 30s, so if the main reason for acting now is that it would be convenient, don't do it. You still have plenty of time. Having a baby is like a mix of the worst decision and best decision you ever made, so if you are uncertain at all and can afford to wait, then wait.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
Babies are soooo much work and a lot harder then you could ever imagine. I have a 23 day old son and every day is stressful and really really hard at this point. I am exhausted, overwhelmed, and frustrated and this is for a baby I really really knew I wanted. Don't do it unless you are certain. I know everyone says babies are hard and so much work but you can't even imagine how much until you have one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 01:53
|
|
|
Hip Hoptimus Prime posted:^ I agree. But is there a time when a switch would go off and you feel ready? At this point I feel like I/we will never be ready! I can answer that. Maybe not. I was kind of in the same spot as you are. I'm luck enough that hubby has a good job and so money for all of us is less of an issue but I have a difficult time accepting a "paycheck" for raising our child, so I don't have a lot of spare money to spend on goodies. I didn't think I'd ever have kids. I never saw myself as a mom (horrible, selfish mom = fears of becoming a poo poo mom myself = "I'm never having kids!") I thought I was too selfish. I worked really hard to get in shape, and given what my sister and mom looked like after kids I didn't have a good feeling about that. I'd worked really hard on my degree and having kids meant I was staying home with her. I just didn't have a desire to do it, but it was a deal breaker with hubby. Now I know there are a bunch of people right now going,"why did you have kids!!!" I didn't NOT want them, I just didn't WANT them like most women seem to. I didn't get all gooey over outfits or friends kids... I just wasn't one of those girls. I wasn't all über mommy while I was pregnant, and all 9 months I was worried I'd never have "the moment", but now that she's here... I can't imagine not having her. I sometimes just watch her sleep. I love cuddling with her, and even with all the sleep deprivation, and poo, and munching on my boobs all day... Yeah, I can't imagine not having her. TL:DR - You may never have that moment before they get here, and that's ok. It doesn't make you a horrible or a selfish person.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 02:24
|
|
|
Hip Hoptimus Prime posted:^ I agree. But is there a time when a switch would go off and you feel ready? At this point I feel like I/we will never be ready! For me, it was being around friend's babies and thinking "it would be nice to have one of my own." Combine that with the shared attitude with my husband of "what the hell else are we doing with our life?" and that's pretty much how we decided to have children. I would certainly say watching our children grow up has given us more amusement than any game or trip we've taken. As for the stuff you give up, it's only temporary. Nine months of pregnancy and however long you choose to breastfeed is such a short time in the grand scheme of things (unless you get knocked up before you've weaned the first one like I did -_-). So I guess my advice is to hang out with someone who has a baby, hold it, and see if there's any stirrings.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 02:29
|
|
|
Midnight Science posted:This is Isla Sif, goons. She was born on June 21st (the solstice!) She is gorgeous, congrats!
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 02:32
|
|
|
Midnight Science posted:This is Isla Sif, goons. She was born on June 21st (the solstice!) She is lovely! Congratulations! My husband's birthday is June 21st. I can vouch for it being a good birthday.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 03:04
|
|
|
So after an exciting visit to the ER, I was diagnosed with placenta previa. I was wondering if anyone else was diagnosed with this early on, and what happened? I am just under 17 weeks, so it's still really early and there's a decent chance it will correct itself apparently. Having a hard time with the horror stories online, I think I need to ban myself from researching it and just hope for the best.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 04:05
|
|
|
Hey, I had a kid too. July 1, at 1:09 AM. Eight days early, 7 pounds, 14 ounces. His name is Caius John Ranieri, because every tiny baby needs two middle names. I actually had no idea I'd been in labor all day Sunday because the contractions didn't hurt (I thought they were just Braxton Hicks). We went to bed that night, my water broke about 10:15 (some little baby had hiccups and broke his sac), and then stuff started to hurt. It started to really hurt around midnight, so we went to the hospital and they wheeled me up to L&D about 12:30. They got me on the table, the midwife checked me, and said what translated to holy crap, you are fully dilated and ready to push! So it felt like I went from 0 to babby really fast. I got really lucky. He's my first, and by rights I think most of that crap should have hurt. Pushing was pretty awful, transition was terrible, but until that point, it was bizarrely cake. We're currently having some feeding issues, similar-sounding to stuff that was posted in the last few pages. But we are all alive and pretty healthy, which is pretty much all I wanted.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 04:10
|
|
|
APOLLO OHNO-UDIDNT posted:So after an exciting visit to the ER, I was diagnosed with placenta previa. I was wondering if anyone else was diagnosed with this early on, and what happened? I am just under 17 weeks, so it's still really early and there's a decent chance it will correct itself apparently. Having a hard time with the horror stories online, I think I need to ban myself from researching it and just hope for the best. Did they say if it was marginal, partial or complete previa? I had partial previa at 18 weeks with my youngest, but by 25 weeks my placenta had moved away from my cervix. At the time, my OB told me that previa diagnosed before 20 weeks has a very high chance of moving and not causing any complications later on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 05:15
|
|
|
Re: wanting kids. I always knew I wanted kids. At one point after meeting my husband the desire to have kids became more concrete, but the wish was there for as long as I can remember.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 07:04
|
|
|
Congratulations on the new babies, they are both beautiful  APOLLO OHNO-UDIDNT posted:So after an exciting visit to the ER, I was diagnosed with placenta previa. I was wondering if anyone else was diagnosed with this early on, and what happened? I am just under 17 weeks, so it's still really early and there's a decent chance it will correct itself apparently. Having a hard time with the horror stories online, I think I need to ban myself from researching it and just hope for the best. My sister in law was diagnosed with placenta previa at her 13 week scan and it had corrected itself by the 20 week one. Fingers crossed yours will correct itself too rectal cushion posted:Re: wanting kids. I always knew I wanted kids. At one point after meeting my husband the desire to have kids became more concrete, but the wish was there for as long as I can remember. I was the same. A bit different as I had my first baby at 17 and I can't really remember how I felt before that, but after I always knew I wanted more. It was one of the things I asked my now husband on our first date - being in love with someone who doesn't want children when you do must be horrible and doubly so because it's no ones fault, they are both valid choices and no one should be pushed into changing their mind because it is such a big decision.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 08:00
|
|
|
Apologies in advance for wall-of-text, I wanted to reply to both Hip Hoptimus Prime and ChloroformSeduction On the earlier topic of maternally-requested C-sections: ChloroformSeduction posted:Anyway, back to the point - when you're comparing apples to apples - that is, healthy, term babies, c-section ones do better. I'm echoing others in asking for some direct, peer-reviewed evidence for this, because it's a pretty big claim to make without evidence to back it up. Particularly when you say yourself that ChloroformSeduction posted:Most of the stats are comparing planned vaginal deliveries that went well with planned vaginal deliveries that ended in a section. I suppose what I'd find the most helpful is something (several somethings, preferably) comparing the complication rate and severity of complications of straightforward vaginal delivery with no pre-existing issues, with maternally requested LUCS with no pre-existing issues. I mean, hell, if it really is so much better to have the kid out via C-section, why aren't they the go-to gold standard for obstetrics? Why put anyone through labour at all? Seems like a great idea to me if you could walk in, have it out and go home within a couple of days with a minimum of fuss. Hell, if I had my way I'd grow my kids in a vat  And for clarification, is everyone saying that the 'sexual dysfunction' aspect that lasts well after a vaginal delivery basically refer to potentially having a stretchier, looser vaginal vault? Obviously tears/fissures can be very painful during intercourse, and pelvic floor weakness/dysruption leading to incontinence/prolapses would be awful (not to mention the horror of any vaginal/bladder/rectal fistulae), but I just wanted to be clear that that's the main thing. How much of the laxity is directly from birth trauma, and how much from the influence of hormones in the final weeks before parturition, does anyone know? Because if it's the latter, then technically you're stuffed either way. I wonder if anyone's been game enough to do a study testing pelvic floor muscle clenching strength (maybe with a Kegel-sizer type implement as the measuring instrument) post vaginal deliveries and comparing the results of pelvic floor rehab for improving symptoms of incontinence/'sexual dysfunction'. // I can add our thoughts on the maybe-baby issue; I'm 29 myself and am not particularly convinced that fertility-wise we have "plenty of time", mostly because of the journal articles I've read. That's a worry for me, and leans my thinking heavily in the 'now (or sometime drat soon!) or never' direction. Generally speaking, if you can get your pregnancy/-ies out of the way by your mid-thirties you're much less likely to need assisted reproductive technology to intervene, IVF and the like. Realistically that's a few very short years left for me. Too short. Having said that, I don't have proven fertility to begin with anyway--I've never been pregnant, never had a pregnancy scare, and my fiance has never had a kid or a pregnancy scare either so the age thing is probably moot. But if I could put off the decision for another 5 years before coming back to this 'now-or-never' point, I drat well would. If only to be 24 again, I sometimes think. But then again: in my early-mid twenties I was always adamantly against the idea of kids, mostly because of uni/work/relationship/emotional instability. I wouldn't have had the knowledge and experience that I have today, back then. It's pointless to lament not being younger. Nowadays I still have incredibly ambivalent moments. My most powerful immediate worries against pregnancy are my social isolation and potential post-partum depression risk, and being off-work when I'm the primary breadwinner in our family. These would be pretty serious if it all went horribly wrong--I have no family whatsoever close by, no real friends outside of work hours within reach, and living in poverty would probably compound the issue. In the bigger picture sense of raising children in general: I have little cause to believe that having kids isn't a bloody shitload of tedious, crapulent work. School runs and PTA and afterschool activities, a ton more laundry and cleaning up, not to mention the horrors of toilet training and breastfeeding in the early years, or dealing with surly, ridiculous teenagers and their hormones later on, et cetera...I should know, I gave my parents enough grief growing up and currently have no relationship with my mother worth speaking of. So there's that. I'd like to think though that living for someone else not me or my partner will be the kind of challenging experience that will add to our lives, not detract from it. I mean, we could travel and see the world, and buy shiny things, but nothing for me has quite the presence and impact of responsibility as having children. So I think no matter how hard it got, it would be worth it. Maybe even more so because it was hard. Dunno, perhaps I'm masochistic that way. It's hard to describe the way something peculiar happens when I think about holding our eventual future children and it makes me feel like the Grinch on Christmas Day. We also think kids are pretty cute and hilarious, and a lot of fun to talk to on good days, so there's that too Gotta have some lightness in amongst all the heavy foreboding of considering parenting. I never used to think that having kids was going to happen, only a 'maybe, but most likely not' but now it's a 'most likely yes, but maybe not in certain situations'.I wanted to address a couple points from your post in particular: Hip Hoptimus Prime posted:-I'm afraid that our kid will have a lifelong, expensive, chronic condition (see my first point about enjoying travel and toys). I know this can be ruled out by having testing beforehand, but still... You can't rule out every lifelong, expensive, chronic condition via prenatal testing. Some include diabetes, childhood cancer, autism spectrum disorders, garden variety depression, or more colourful mental disorders like schizophrenia, or neurological issues that could stem from trauma during the birth process, or hell, from falling into a pool as a kid and half-drowning while noone's watching. You can't really rule out very much at all, and certainly there's no guarantee your kid could be perfectly fine and still won't cost you tons of money over the course of his/her lifetime, if my childhood is anything to go by. And you could just donate your estate to charity in your will you know. Or adopt someone later in life to will your estate to. I believe a form of this occurs in Japan for example, where families with a business, without sons, actually adopt adult men in order to have someone take over the family business. You don't have to have a blood relation to put in writing the best way to use your inheritance. You could also have a kid and they could squander your inheritance also, after all. Or not have any inheritance to give, either. Until you're in a position to better predict your financial status closer to the probable end of your life, it might be best not to stress too much about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 10:00
|
|
|
It'd be a terrible idea to have a kid just to give them an inheritance. Money can be left to a good charity and they will help many children with it, not just one. What if your child turns out to be bad with money?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 12:53
|
|
|
Deciding to become a parent takes a ridiculously huge leap of faith. You can plan to your heart's content, but plans have a way of going pear shaped when pregnancy/babies are involved. If you aren't able to let go of the "what-ifs" just a little and if you're continually mentally tallying the things you'll miss out on by having a kid, then parenthood may not be for you. I'm not being snide, it's just the truth. Kids require sacrifice and hard work, and poo poo can go south really quick, whether it be health problems or money issues or what have you, and you'd better be sure your relationship is rock solid too because having a kid tends to throw all those little annoyances out in the open and they can become Great Big Problems super quickly. Basically, having a kid is like Game of Thrones: you win or you die. Or your relationship goes to poo poo and everyone resents each other forever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 13:18
|
|
|
Hip Hoptimus Prime posted:I'm really, really on the fence about having a kid. I am 28, married, and husband and I both have good jobs (I am a teacher and I am starting at a different school next month, while he is in the Army). So I still have "time" I guess. But, right now, I don't really want one. Is there a point where, for you guys, a switch went off and you were ready? I'm in my mid twenties now and husband is early thirties. I don't think a switch ever really went off for me, but I can basically remember there being a time when I knew I would not be ready any time soon (like early twenties, when I was single and in school) then gradually it shifted to where I was like "Oh yeah I want kids but have to meet the right person" then I met my husband and we both knew we wanted them eventually, with each other, we just needed to hit some other milestones first (get married, buy a house, make sure our finances were ok) just because those basic things were both important to us to achieve before kids. I think once we had those things nailed down the situation went from zero to pregnant pretty fast, but in reality we had both been "planning" for it for a while. Like, even before we met each other we had things put into place for kids eventually like savings and no debt and stuff like that. That being said we are both huge planners to the point of near neurosis and if we had waited until everything felt "right" we could have been waiting a while honestly. But the thought of impending fertility issues made us realize it made more sense to do sooner rather than later. (And it did happen really soon, like only after a couple months of not NOT-trying. And right after I had decided for unrelated reasons to take a year long unpaid personal leave from work. Thanks, life!) Our little girl is set to get here late September/early October and there are still days when I wonder if I'm really ready but I think that's normal worrying. To your point about illnesses or disorders - of course you could worry literally every single day about something happening to your kid (illness, injury, what have you) but the reality is that if you start up with that stuff, it will never stop. It's not like there will ever be a day in your child's life when you won't be afraid of something happening to them. So I try to nip it in the bud before it starts so that my kid won't have to deal with hovering, neurotic mom and dad. I was thinking the other day about the next kid that we have and how nerve-wracking the first 12 weeks of being pregnant were, wondering constantly if I would have a miscarriage, or we'd find out that something was wrong with the baby, and I was like "oh god, I'm supposed to go through all that AGAIN?" Really, there's a certain amount of just letting yourself be a passenger on the ride so to speak. You have to just let it go. Don't have a baby though if you can't fathom the thought of giving up your favorite food/alcohol/activity for the duration of pregnancy or are constantly thinking about all the things you'll have to give up once you have kids. And don't have kids so you can leave all your money to someone, or because you have insurance to cover pregnancy/birth right now. Have kids because you are both ready to have them and both want them, at least in some fundamental way. Also congratulations on the super-cute new goonbabies this page 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 14:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 22:47 |
|
|
Midnight Science, your baby is precious. Those cheeks!New Weave Wendy posted:I'm in my mid twenties now and husband is early thirties. I don't think a switch ever really went off for me, but I can basically remember there being a time when I knew I would not be ready any time soon (like early twenties, when I was single and in school) then gradually it shifted to where I was like "Oh yeah I want kids but have to meet the right person" then I met my husband and we both knew we wanted them eventually, with each other, we just needed to hit some other milestones first (get married, buy a house, make sure our finances were ok) just because those basic things were both important to us to achieve before kids. I think once we had those things nailed down the situation went from zero to pregnant pretty fast, but in reality we had both been "planning" for it for a while. Like, even before we met each other we had things put into place for kids eventually like savings and no debt and stuff like that. That being said we are both huge planners to the point of near neurosis and if we had waited until everything felt "right" we could have been waiting a while honestly. But the thought of impending fertility issues made us realize it made more sense to do sooner rather than later. (And it did happen really soon, like only after a couple months of not NOT-trying. And right after I had decided for unrelated reasons to take a year long unpaid personal leave from work. Thanks, life!) This goes for us, too. I'm in my mid-20s and my husband is in his late-20s, we bought a house a few years ago, the cars are paid off, we both have great jobs, and only a little bit of debt. We could've waited, but now is just a good time. As far as illness/injury - it's going to happen. Nobody goes through life without getting sick or hurt at some point, and most of us come through okay. Worrying about it piles so much stress on that it's almost worse than if something actually happened! So, speaking as an only child pregnant with her first and NOT planning on having more, what the hell is up with everybody asking me when we're going to have another baby, then saying "Oh, you'll change your mind, you can't do that to your baby!" when I tell them we only want one? I never had any issues with not having siblings. My husband has a brother but they don't really get along. Why is it so ingrained in people that I'm somehow torturing my child if I don't pop out a sibling for him? I can't see us being able to provide for two or more like we can for one - he can have the best daycare, the best school, the best outside-of-school education, more of our time and attention, etc. With two, we really REALLY couldn't promise those things, especially with regards to education, and it's super important to me that our kid gets the best we can offer. It's just bizarre that people think I'm loving our kid up by not planning on more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 15:24
|
|