So I was reading Practical Peranting magazine (I buy it sometimes if they have an article that looks good or free stuff- I love free stuff) and this article caught my eye.
It's about three different women who had C-sections for three different reasons. The last one had an elective c-section because she 'didn't want a vaginal birth'. Reading on she claims she felt it was the safest option because ultrasounds showed "the baby had a large head and a long body. My mother in law had a very difficult birth with Shane (partner), so as a family we decided that a caesarean was the safest option".
She also thought that at her age (39) it was "sensible". She aslo says "I wanted to ensure that following birth, I was rested and relaxed for the hardest job yet to come- tending to the needs of my newborn son when we were able to go home."
Now I really can't understand anything she's said. To me her mil having a complicated birth wouldn't have any bearing on wether or not she did. I mean her mil is not blood related, would have given birth around 40 yrs ago (assuming her partner is of similar age to her), could have had a complicated birth or even given birth to a breech baby. How does that length of a baby impact a vaginal birth?
What does her being 39 have to do with anything?
How in HECK did/does she think the recovery of a c-section wich lasts weeks and can be painful and limiting to say the least could be more restful and relaxing than a vaginal birth where you're pretty much good to go in most cases?
I'm not being bitchy or judgemental (again I'm having to add a disclaimer- sigh). I'm honestly scratching my head over her reasoning. She said she was supported in this by her Ob.
OOOHHH... INTERNET FIGHT. WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO? CAPS LOCK ME TOO DEATH?
(Noddy's not fat ffs!)