"Of all countries in 2020, the United States possessed the highest infant mortality rate at 5.4 deaths per 1000 live births, which is markedly higher than the 1.6 deaths per 1000 live births in Norway, which has the the lowest mortality rate."
"More women are having children later in life and more women are entering pregnancy with chronic conditions such as hypertension, obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. The rising number of Cesarean sections – a major surgery that is not always necessary – is also believed to be a contributor."
One should ask why so many young women suffer from life threatening chronic conditions. Does it have something to do with pharmaceuticals, vaccines, or the chemicals inundating the food supply.
And what is it about the culture that's causing women to defer childbirth to their late 30's or early 40's.
As far as "C sections" are concerned they're more medically profitable as well as expedient since the delivery can be planned down to the minute. Unfortunately, it results in a longer recovery for the mother.
"Most people stay in the hospital between two and three days. A full recovery can take between four and six weeks. Most providers recommend avoiding steps, lifting, exercise and other strenuous activities for several weeks."
- the mother was dead or dying, as an attempt to save the child for a state wishing to increase its population,
MEDICAL reasons when
- baby is positioned bottom or feet first (breech) and can't be turned,
- cervix (opening to the womb) is blocked by the placenta (placenta praevia),
- baby is lying sideways (transverse) and can't be turned by the doctor,
DIRECT MONETARY reasons because
- a Caesarean Section is more profitable for the hospital and professionals involved,
- can be planned to the minute (don't you dare ruining my weekend ...!!),
INTERCOURSE reasons
- female genital anatomy is unaltered by birth-giving, hence "same feel" ... and last-not-least
INDIRECT MONETARY reasons because
- Caesarean Section prevents the foetus from being imbibed with the micro-biome specific to the mother's vaginal environment, hence impeding the newborn's immune-system being primed for a life on a planet where bacteria and numerous pathogens are dominant.
It is obvious that BIG PHARMA silently promotes Caesarian Section, securing them millions of life-long patients and perfectly fraudulent, but legal wind-fall profits !!
I'm interested in what you said about female genital anatomy...
Just happened to be reading a book called the Sex Contract by the anthropologist Helen Fisher and came across a fun fact:
"Human females can have orgasms any time they want to. In fact, in the 1950s Kinsey reported that 90 percent ofAmerican women had their best sex at the end oftheir monthly cycle. This is a bit odd. It is not a time when a woman can get pregnant. Yet at this time blood pools naturally in the pelvic area—a phenomenon known as the “premenstrual tension syndrome”—and creates pressure in the female genitals that heightens the intensity of orgasm. It seems that nature has even made menstruation sexy for the human female.
Pregnancy and motherhood bring sexual rewards too. During pregnancy, new capillaries are built to feed the expanding pelvic area, and fluid congregates in the genitals—heightening the force of orgasm. Childbirth provides the genitals with added circulation too. So for a mother the contractions of orgasm are more intense than they are for a childless woman. And sex gets better with each new child."
It makes sense to me that nature would have such compensatory mechanisms... I'm curious about such things, but they seem hard to study. How can you compare one person's pleasure to another? Seems like it would be impossible to isolate variables, and of course sexual pleasure is subjective, context-dependent, and subject to reporting bias.
I once read that married Christian women experience orgasm more frequently than unmarried women do, and also wondered where that data came from. But if the biological purpose of love to foster prosocial behaviour and the purpose of prosocial behaviour is ultimately the increase odds of sexual reproduction, which in human beings involves many years of cooperative child-rearing, and the purpose of pair-bonding is cooperative child-rearing... It actually does make evolutionary sense that a pair-bonded couple would enjoy better sex.
Seems hard to test this theory, though. And there's no reason to believe that human beings evolved to be monogamous, so there's that. But I believe it's well established that women actually get hornier with age, reaching their sexual peak around 35, whereas for men it's around 18. Could the evolutionary purpose of increased female horniness later in life be to keep male mates from wandering off?
I don't know, but at the end of the day I trust Mother Nature. I think that we should assume that there are reasons why we have the instincts we have, and we should strive to live in accordance with our nature.
If women are choosing to get themselves sliced open because they're worried that they or their partner will enjoy sex less afterward, I think this is a topic that should discussed and debated openly. I would suspect that the pros of natural birth outweigh the cons...
I'm curious how much of a factor this is in women's decision to get caesarians... I know that one reason some women are reluctant to have children is because they don't want to lose their figure... but women who choose to carry an infant to term are already signing up for some effect on their figure, whether they deliver vaginally or not.
I'm guessing that the main reason is that they're afraid of pain, but I wouldn't be surprised if the fear of having a loose pussy is a secondary factor. If so, again, if we don't talk about such things everyone's left guessing. Women don't know what sex is like from a male perspective.
I suspect this factor is way down the list in terms of why so women get C-sections nowadays though. I think that most people (women and men) will simply follow the advice of experts, and the experts in this case are doctors, who are low-level employees in a vast medical-industrial complex that has been corrupted by pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, etc...
I think it's mostly about money, at the end of the day.
The inhumanity of it all. How can such a fundamental event be viewed as wrong?
Mistaking organism with mechanism is a means to control the symptoms of an underlying fear. Where this comes from I don't know but it's been baked in for a long time.
I see it as part of a general trend to pathologize and medicalize normal parts of the human experience in order to make money selling unnecessary solutions. I wrote something about the transhumanist urge to remove women from human reproduction here: https://nevermoremedia.substack.com/p/the-ultimate-misogyny
Curious what led you to take on this topic? I sense authenticity in you...it triggers me to see David Graeber pedestaled...as a man. More of the same. IMO ought to be curious rather than experts on this topic. You may enjoy Ina May's guide to childbirth. I read it before having two home birth VBACs and it sealed my decision to go for it when I read her chapter on sphincter law. My husband was in medical school at the time. He was fully supportive. It was dissonant for him attending medicalized births having attended the birth/births of his own children at home with midwives, both of whom were excellent. For me, ideally I would have had the option of a birth center adjacent to an OR...a legally separate entity separated only be a glass bridge. But given the choice of hospital or home, I felt home was least risky based on both my research of relevant risks and my own intuitive self-knowing that I would invariably "fail" in a pressured setting hooked up to all the monitors, on the clock...with them erring on the side of go to C-section versus their fear of getting sued if you wait too long and have a bad outcome.
Thanks for sharing... To answer your question, I specialize in controversial topics. I read Holly High's essay and thought it was worth sharing. I've spent much of my adult life dedicated to indigenous solidarity activism... and I live in Mexico, where C-sections are promoted to indigenous people who have been doing just fine at midwifery for thousands of years. The Maya in particular are apparently very good midwives... Western doctors should be learning from them, not telling them that they need major surgeries when they don't.
I also have a bit of agenda because 1) I am a survivor of psychiatric abuse and there's a lot of things I hate about Western medicine, doctors, and science, and 2) I am a critic of what I call "fourth wave feminism" because the #MeToo era largely destroyed the anarchist movement in Canada. I'm making the case that women should look to institutional sexism such as the long tradition of obstetric violence perpetuated by the Cult of the Male Doctor, rather than attacking relatively powerless alpha males "taking up a lot of space" in punk scenes or whatever.
I'm glad your husband supported you in your VBAC... Could you tell me a bit more about VBACs? I don't know much about them.
"Of all countries in 2020, the United States possessed the highest infant mortality rate at 5.4 deaths per 1000 live births, which is markedly higher than the 1.6 deaths per 1000 live births in Norway, which has the the lowest mortality rate."
https://www.ajmc.com/view/us-has-highest-infant-maternal-mortality-rates-despite-the-most-health-care-spending
"More women are having children later in life and more women are entering pregnancy with chronic conditions such as hypertension, obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. The rising number of Cesarean sections – a major surgery that is not always necessary – is also believed to be a contributor."
One should ask why so many young women suffer from life threatening chronic conditions. Does it have something to do with pharmaceuticals, vaccines, or the chemicals inundating the food supply.
And what is it about the culture that's causing women to defer childbirth to their late 30's or early 40's.
As far as "C sections" are concerned they're more medically profitable as well as expedient since the delivery can be planned down to the minute. Unfortunately, it results in a longer recovery for the mother.
"Most people stay in the hospital between two and three days. A full recovery can take between four and six weeks. Most providers recommend avoiding steps, lifting, exercise and other strenuous activities for several weeks."
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/7246-cesarean-birth-c-section
Caesarean Section was/is applied because:
STATE interference when
- the mother was dead or dying, as an attempt to save the child for a state wishing to increase its population,
MEDICAL reasons when
- baby is positioned bottom or feet first (breech) and can't be turned,
- cervix (opening to the womb) is blocked by the placenta (placenta praevia),
- baby is lying sideways (transverse) and can't be turned by the doctor,
DIRECT MONETARY reasons because
- a Caesarean Section is more profitable for the hospital and professionals involved,
- can be planned to the minute (don't you dare ruining my weekend ...!!),
INTERCOURSE reasons
- female genital anatomy is unaltered by birth-giving, hence "same feel" ... and last-not-least
INDIRECT MONETARY reasons because
- Caesarean Section prevents the foetus from being imbibed with the micro-biome specific to the mother's vaginal environment, hence impeding the newborn's immune-system being primed for a life on a planet where bacteria and numerous pathogens are dominant.
It is obvious that BIG PHARMA silently promotes Caesarian Section, securing them millions of life-long patients and perfectly fraudulent, but legal wind-fall profits !!
I'm interested in what you said about female genital anatomy...
Just happened to be reading a book called the Sex Contract by the anthropologist Helen Fisher and came across a fun fact:
"Human females can have orgasms any time they want to. In fact, in the 1950s Kinsey reported that 90 percent ofAmerican women had their best sex at the end oftheir monthly cycle. This is a bit odd. It is not a time when a woman can get pregnant. Yet at this time blood pools naturally in the pelvic area—a phenomenon known as the “premenstrual tension syndrome”—and creates pressure in the female genitals that heightens the intensity of orgasm. It seems that nature has even made menstruation sexy for the human female.
Pregnancy and motherhood bring sexual rewards too. During pregnancy, new capillaries are built to feed the expanding pelvic area, and fluid congregates in the genitals—heightening the force of orgasm. Childbirth provides the genitals with added circulation too. So for a mother the contractions of orgasm are more intense than they are for a childless woman. And sex gets better with each new child."
It makes sense to me that nature would have such compensatory mechanisms... I'm curious about such things, but they seem hard to study. How can you compare one person's pleasure to another? Seems like it would be impossible to isolate variables, and of course sexual pleasure is subjective, context-dependent, and subject to reporting bias.
I once read that married Christian women experience orgasm more frequently than unmarried women do, and also wondered where that data came from. But if the biological purpose of love to foster prosocial behaviour and the purpose of prosocial behaviour is ultimately the increase odds of sexual reproduction, which in human beings involves many years of cooperative child-rearing, and the purpose of pair-bonding is cooperative child-rearing... It actually does make evolutionary sense that a pair-bonded couple would enjoy better sex.
Seems hard to test this theory, though. And there's no reason to believe that human beings evolved to be monogamous, so there's that. But I believe it's well established that women actually get hornier with age, reaching their sexual peak around 35, whereas for men it's around 18. Could the evolutionary purpose of increased female horniness later in life be to keep male mates from wandering off?
I don't know, but at the end of the day I trust Mother Nature. I think that we should assume that there are reasons why we have the instincts we have, and we should strive to live in accordance with our nature.
If women are choosing to get themselves sliced open because they're worried that they or their partner will enjoy sex less afterward, I think this is a topic that should discussed and debated openly. I would suspect that the pros of natural birth outweigh the cons...
I'm curious how much of a factor this is in women's decision to get caesarians... I know that one reason some women are reluctant to have children is because they don't want to lose their figure... but women who choose to carry an infant to term are already signing up for some effect on their figure, whether they deliver vaginally or not.
I'm guessing that the main reason is that they're afraid of pain, but I wouldn't be surprised if the fear of having a loose pussy is a secondary factor. If so, again, if we don't talk about such things everyone's left guessing. Women don't know what sex is like from a male perspective.
I suspect this factor is way down the list in terms of why so women get C-sections nowadays though. I think that most people (women and men) will simply follow the advice of experts, and the experts in this case are doctors, who are low-level employees in a vast medical-industrial complex that has been corrupted by pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, etc...
I think it's mostly about money, at the end of the day.
Nice answer! I think you covered most of the reasons here... I bet someone will be able to come up with some others, though...
I suspect a lot of it comes down to money...
Thanks ...😌😌
{...a lot of it comes down to money...}
ALL of it, ALL !!!
The inhumanity of it all. How can such a fundamental event be viewed as wrong?
Mistaking organism with mechanism is a means to control the symptoms of an underlying fear. Where this comes from I don't know but it's been baked in for a long time.
I see it as part of a general trend to pathologize and medicalize normal parts of the human experience in order to make money selling unnecessary solutions. I wrote something about the transhumanist urge to remove women from human reproduction here: https://nevermoremedia.substack.com/p/the-ultimate-misogyny
Curious what led you to take on this topic? I sense authenticity in you...it triggers me to see David Graeber pedestaled...as a man. More of the same. IMO ought to be curious rather than experts on this topic. You may enjoy Ina May's guide to childbirth. I read it before having two home birth VBACs and it sealed my decision to go for it when I read her chapter on sphincter law. My husband was in medical school at the time. He was fully supportive. It was dissonant for him attending medicalized births having attended the birth/births of his own children at home with midwives, both of whom were excellent. For me, ideally I would have had the option of a birth center adjacent to an OR...a legally separate entity separated only be a glass bridge. But given the choice of hospital or home, I felt home was least risky based on both my research of relevant risks and my own intuitive self-knowing that I would invariably "fail" in a pressured setting hooked up to all the monitors, on the clock...with them erring on the side of go to C-section versus their fear of getting sued if you wait too long and have a bad outcome.
Thanks for sharing... To answer your question, I specialize in controversial topics. I read Holly High's essay and thought it was worth sharing. I've spent much of my adult life dedicated to indigenous solidarity activism... and I live in Mexico, where C-sections are promoted to indigenous people who have been doing just fine at midwifery for thousands of years. The Maya in particular are apparently very good midwives... Western doctors should be learning from them, not telling them that they need major surgeries when they don't.
I also have a bit of agenda because 1) I am a survivor of psychiatric abuse and there's a lot of things I hate about Western medicine, doctors, and science, and 2) I am a critic of what I call "fourth wave feminism" because the #MeToo era largely destroyed the anarchist movement in Canada. I'm making the case that women should look to institutional sexism such as the long tradition of obstetric violence perpetuated by the Cult of the Male Doctor, rather than attacking relatively powerless alpha males "taking up a lot of space" in punk scenes or whatever.
I'm glad your husband supported you in your VBAC... Could you tell me a bit more about VBACs? I don't know much about them.
Thanks for writing back! With whom am I having this dialogue?