My mother gave birth to me via emergency C-section after 18 intense hours of labor (it took the doctors that long to realize my mom's hips were too narrow for giving birth), when her (and my) vitals began to tank. My younger sister was a planned C-section, both because of hospital policy (not allowing lady partsl births after a C-section) and because there was almost no chance my mom could give birth to her lady partslly, even if she had wanted to.
On the other hand, my sister-in-law had a C-section with my nephew, because he had been diagnosed with gastroschisis. But four years later, she lady partslly gave birth to my beautiful niece, with no problems whatsoever. As you can see, the hospital had no such policy about the C-Sections.
Whether or not someone wants a C-Section, that can be left to debate. That is not the issue I found in this article. The issue I found is that someone compared a C-Section to rape! How on Earth can you justify something like that? I understand that some women feel incredibly disappointed that their wishes aren't being taken into consideration, but the fact of the matter is that hospitals have these policies for a reason. Yes, part of it is to cover their own tails and prevent lawsuits, but why would there be lawsuits in the first place? Risks and/or harm to the patient? Gee, there's a thought. Rape is an act of violence, and of dominating power over your victim. How is that in any way comparable?
My personal opinion... Yes, when I do have children, I would like to give birth lady partslly. But if I ever find myself in a place where my medical staff are telling me that I need to have a C-Section, do it! Anything to keep my baby and I safe (in that order, for me at least).
Anyone else think that this woman is far out of reach in her logic? Or do you think she's on to something?
