Should C-Sections be mandatory to spare babies pain of birth?

[bhsup]

Title says it all. I want -no- crosstalk with that other subject going on right now. This is about birth, period. We have the ability to perform C-sections and save the baby the pain of a natural birth. So since we can, shouldn't we make it mandatory for all births?

EDIT: Just a bit more... The babies did not choose to be conceived or born, so why should they be mandatorily subjected to the pain of natural childbirth if it is avoidable? They had absolutely no say or input in the matter. It's not as if they asked to be a Volkswagen squeezed through a fuel line.

 

[KMRblue1027]

Doesn't it increase the risk to the mother in comparison to a natural birth?

 

[bhsup]

So what? The mother (and father) chose to do this. That's on them. The baby had no say in it, so shouldn't everything be about the baby and not about the parents?

 

[Perfection]

So what? The mother (and father) chose to do this. That's on them. The baby had no say in it, so shouldn't everything be about the baby and not about the parents?

Isn't the health, safety, and quality of life of the mother typically important for the baby?

 

[KMRblue1027]

I'm not sure what your argument is here? In 99.9% of cases doctor should do what poses the least risk to both parties (that sounds terrible to say it like this but it's the most formal way). It's not like a baby is going to remember being born. If there's an inherent danger to either way than go with whatever is the safest otherwise it doesn't really matter.

 

[Kennigit]

is there evidence babies are in pain in birth?

 

[EulerMcE]

Damn babies need to stop crying and grow up.

 

[bhsup]

Are Repeat C-Sections Safer Than Natural Birth? (It's a WebMD link for those who don't want to bother reading it. It's not Fox, it's not MSNBC, and it's not some fringe group with a partisan stake in it)

March 13, 2012 -- Planned repeat cesarean section is linked to healthier outcomes among mothers and babies compared to vaginal birth after cesarean, or VBAC, in a new study from Australia.

Death and serious health issues associated with either delivery method were rare.

But women in the study who had planned surgical deliveries experienced fewer serious bleeding issues compared to women who planned to have VBAC deliveries, and their babies were about half as likely to die or suffer serious health problems around the time of birth.

It does go on to say that natural birth is better if you've never had a C-section before, but apparently if you've had one, you best just keep doing it via C-section.

Frankly, the risk is not great either way, so again I'd say the focus should go back to the baby and whether we should be taking the baby's trauma into account.

 

[Kennigit]

It does go on to say that natural birth is better if you've never had a C-section before, but apparently if you've had one, you best just keep doing it via C-section.

Sounds like that's my stance then, but since such things vary so much case to case I assume it's best for the doctor to decide with the mother.

I will keep this in mind for any baby construction operation I run myself into in the future if ever.

 

[Cheetah]

It is our human misfortune that our evolution ended up with forcing us to be birthed with an abnormally large head through a pelvis molded for upright walking...

But to get right at your topic: Arguments against mandatory caesarean section:

1. There is a strong case to be made that by passing through the vagina the child is exposed to its mother's bacteria flora and as a consequence develops a stronger immune system. Statistically speaking, children born naturally are healthier than children born through caesarean section.

2. A caesarean section is, no matter how one think of it, still surgery. And any surgery can result in complications, and should therefore not be conducted needlessly. While a birth can be extremely painful, it is generally not recommended that a caesarean section is performed unless medical conditions make that a safer option for mother or child.

 

[Perfection]

What if the mom is a porn star and the reduced capability to generate income due to post operative scarring would result in the baby suffering from government induced poverty?

Maybe we should include an exemption for porn stars or those who aspire to be one.

 

[JollyRoger]

To spare the baby the pain of birth, we could always abort the birth.

 

[Zelig]

We should grow babies in tubes, sentient meatbags are far too dangerous and unpredictable to risk babies in.

 

[El_Machinae]

Are there longterm consequences either way? (for the baby)

 

[Smellincoffee]

No, that kind of suffering early on builds character.

 

[Birdjaguar]

natural childbirth forces the baby through the birth canal and that process squeezes fluid out of the lungs. C- section babies have a higher incidence of lung problems and pneumonia. As I see it, most C- sections are for the convenience of the doctor. I would say they should only be allowed if they are necessary to save a life.

 

[mangxema]

It does go on to say that natural birth is better if you've never had a C-section before, but apparently if you've had one, you best just keep doing it via C-section.

That sounds about right. At least, that's what I've heard from my mom to be the reason that all of us were c-sections.

 

[filli_noctus]

Higher mortality rate among those delivered by C-section, wet lung and a reduced ability for the mother to care for the infant during the first six weeks of life. There you go.

 

[Hygro]

Whoa. No.

When a baby is born, they accumulate certain bacteria to go into their system, effectively for life. The bacteria around the vagina is healthy and good for the baby. The bacteria on the belly is not. If you want to risk having your kid have a compromised immune system and allergies, go for the C-section.

That and risking a slightly misshapen skull.

Quite frankly unless it's a medical necessity, it's wrong to perform a C-Section.

 

[warpus]

You're grasping for skin here VRWC. I mean straws.