Pregnancy is dangerous

[Kber]

That’s a fact. In “the good old days” up to 25% of girls born could expect to die in childbirth. Why don’t we anymore? It isn’t because the biology of pregnancy, labor and delivery have somehow become more safe. Humans don’t physically evolve that fast. So what’s the deal?

For starters, birth control has made a huge difference. It’s safer to have your first child at 25 than at 15, and it’s safer to have your last child at 35 than at 40. Pregnancies at the edges of fertility are called “high risk” for a reason. Similarly, your second pregnancy is going to be safer than, say, your sixth or seventh. It’s hard work making babies and you can literally wear your body out.

Second, legal and safe abortion allows women to terminate unsafe pregnancies before they become fatally dangerous. As just one example, ectopic (or tubal) pregnancies are almost always fatal if they are not medically aborted before the rupture.

Finally, improved hospital care, prenatal care, nutrition, and a myriad of other factors have made pregnancy and labor a lot less dangerous, but limiting the number of pregnancies and giving women a way to terminate life threatening ones save lives just as much as the ability to perform a caesarian section in the case of a breach birth.

So birth control is about so much more than “consequence free” sex – it’s about preserving women’s health and even our lives. Sometimes this even means saving our lives so that we can be better, more engaged and more present mothers to the children we chose to have. Personally I know I’m a better mom to the two kids I have than I would be if I had four. My sister in law, on the other hand, is a wonderful mom to the 4 kids she chose to have, but she can’t imagine having 5 or 6.

Finally, MY religion teaches that sex is a vital component of a strong and loving marriage. Infertility is no excuse to abstain from relations with your wife or husband and is in fact frowned upon. Sex is considered, normal, natural and a cause for joy. There is a teaching, specifically for young men, that advises that the happiest children are those conceived in the “mutual joy” of both parents and therefore instructs husbands to take care to ensure their wife’s pleasure as well as their own. I think there is some wisdom in that. 

(And my religion is older than Santorum’s, so pppbbbttt!)

(That’s not to say I’ve got a better lock on heaven or anything, just that I realize there is more than one way of looking at God, holiness, and morality, and I resent Santorum’s implication that anyone who disagrees with him is some god forsaken schmuck with no moral compass.)

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I couldn't have said it better myself...

[Kber]

3. Thank you!

[shraby]

2. I can attest to that..I put genealogy for my county online that the most prominent cause of

death in women ages 18-45 was childbirth.

[Kber]

4. My family genealogy often has the death of the mother coinsiding with the birth of a child

Happened a lot.

[shraby]

9. Many young women's graves have more than one in them. They often buried the two together.

[HockeyMom]

5. Having had both an ectopic which ruptured (at Catholic hospital) and a breach birth

Probaby 100 years ago I would not have survived either one. Do you know ectopic pregnancies are the number one cause of maternal deaths still today? The embryo/fetus ALWAYS will die if in the fallopian tube. Despite the llife or death situation, the pro-birth people still want to put up blocks for a life saving procedure.

Breach? Even that is hardly a "routine" pregnancy.

[Kber]

7. I had a ruptured ectopic too. Most of us don't make it.

Ironically my only "planned" pregnancy. My other 2 were difficult, but at least I got 2 wonder kids out of the deal.

I'm with you, 100 years ago I'd certainly be childless and probably be dead.

Actually, I would have likely survived my 3rd pregnany, but only because I wouldn't have carried past my 9th week without medical inervention.

[JDPriestly]

11. For those who do not know what an ectopic pregnancy is. (About 1% of pregnancies are ectopic.)

An ectopic pregnancy, or eccysis, is a complication of pregnancy in which the embryo implants outside the uterine cavity.[1] With rare exceptions, ectopic pregnancies are not viable. Furthermore, they are dangerous for the parent, since internal haemorrhage is a life threatening complication. Most ectopic pregnancies occur in the Fallopian tube (so-called tubal pregnancies), but implantation can also occur in the cervix, ovaries, and abdomen. An ectopic pregnancy is a potential medical emergency, and, if not treated properly, can lead to death.

. . . .

In a typical ectopic pregnancy, the embryo adheres to the lining of the fallopian tube and burrows into the tubal lining. Most commonly this invades vessels and will cause bleeding. This intratubal bleeding hematosalpinx expels the implantation out of the tubal end as a tubal abortion. Tubal abortion is a common type of miscarriage. There is no inflammation of the tube in ectopic pregnancy. The pain is caused by prostaglandins released at the implantation site, and by free blood in the peritoneal cavity, which is a local irritant. Sometimes the bleeding might be heavy enough to threaten the health or life of the woman. Usually this degree of bleeding is due to delay in diagnosis, but sometimes, especially if the implantation is in the proximal tube (just before it enters the uterus), it may invade into the nearby Sampson artery, causing heavy bleeding earlier than usual.

If left untreated, about half of ectopic pregnancies will resolve without treatment. These are the tubal abortions. The advent of methotrexate treatment for ectopic pregnancy has reduced the need for surgery; however, surgical intervention is still required in cases where the Fallopian tube has ruptured or is in danger of doing so. This intervention may be laparoscopic or through a larger incision, known as a laparotomy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy

[K Gardner]

6. K&R.. this is what is not being covered in the discourse, however,

I did read or hear somewhere that there's going to be a Medical Panel convened.

[annabanana]

8. We are only a couple generations away from this, yet girls

coming of age today have NO IDEA the risks they no longer face. Have we, as Mothers been remiss? Do we"prefer' not to talk about it.. the way the victims of war would never tell of the horrors?

[Ilsa]

10. Advanced prenatal care, antibiotics, and blood transfusions

have all played a part in decreasing maternal mortality. If anyone doesn't believe the OP, they should visit a century old cemetery and see how many graves of very young women there are.

[HeiressofBickworth]

12. Not only dangerous

but if the religious fanatics get away with laws that specifically do not exclude cases of the life of the mother, then ectopic or other difficult pregnancies become a death sentence. No trial, no defense, no legal judgment just death at the hands of the state legislature.

Yes, I'm one who also had a ruptured ectopic pregnancy. Fortunately, I was already in the hospital when it ruptured so it was immediate surgery which saved my life.

[Tumbulu]

13. it is still dangerous by modern standards

The current mortality rate in the US is 24/100,000 live births. Google high risk jobs and see how giving birth compares to fighting fires, being a policeman, serving in the military, roofing, being a fisherman, etc. It is right up there.

It is far worse in less developed nations and a bit better in Europe, but certainly not risk free.

I think that women in general do not talk about how hard pregnancy and birth are for fear of upsetting their children.

At least that is why I don't talk about it to much.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

14. Lack of C-sections is a mandatory death sentence for many women.

Including me. I have narrow hips and I am a small person. I can fit into a standard airline seat with a couple of inches to spare. I had a planned c-section b/c my doctor was smart enough to figure out that the hole in my pelvis was not big enough for a baby's head to fit through. It has to be four inches in diameter or it's not big enough. It's commonly called a "contracted pelvis" but that implies deformity. I do not have a deformity.

The baby was jammed in diagonally, and she couldn't kick me because she had no room to do so. I also had no dilation and no dropping during labor. Kid wasn't going anywhere until the doctor took her out. Huge, eight pounds, and all muscle.

It's not true that childbirth is safe because it's a natural process. There are lots of natural processes that are unhealthy -- like bacteria that can kill you.

Not every woman can have a safe delivery without medical intervention. Childbirth is not a contest and the goal is a safe delivery and a healthy mother and child. I do not feel like I failed because I could not have a vaginal delivery. I was overjoyed that my child got here safely because of skilled medical help and a good surgeon, and that we both survived. If any natural childbirth advocate told me I was a failure, I would tell her to STFU.

[Kber]

15. So glad you and your daughter are healthy and here!

If I were going to point to the one biggest medical advance in women's health, it would be the point at which doctors stopped treating pregnancy as some sort of justified punishment for our supposed sin (of sex? of tempting Adam into eating that damned apple?) and instead started treating us like patients.

When Queen Victoria's doctor administered anesthia (sp?) for one of her births, he caused a huge scandal because the overriding opinion at the time was that women, even Queens, were SUPPOSED to SUFFER.

The thing that scares me the most about the current debate isn't the details of birth control, abortion, preventitive care. It's the return / strengthening of the idea that we are supposed to suffer, that we deserve the discomfort, pain, and yes even death, as a moral matter of fact.

I think that is what is really beneath the surface of the "debate and it's really ugly.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

17. Yes, they want us to suffer. They really do.

I thank medical science every day for the knowledge that allows me to live.

[treestar]

30. You are right, and they want us at the disadvantage that caused

So that we had less confidence, and had to choose between any type of career and motherhood.

[Grateful for Hope]

16. Yes

I am a little person (4' 11&quot , but my hip space was apparently large enough to birth four babies naturally. My two daughters, on the other hand, had to have c-sections for their babies because their pelvic areas are so narrow.

I am so grateful for the "medical intervention" they had. Beautiful, beautiful grandbabies.

[csziggy]

19. My oldest sister was not a small woman and she was pear shaped

But her pelvis was not big enough for her two sons big heads! With her first, by the time she was seven months along her doctor had already scheduled a C section because the ultrasound showed how big his head was. Her second son's head was even larger.

The entire family is glad she was able to have the medical intervention because those two wonderful boys are all we have left of her.

[laundry_queen]

26. My grandmother was your height as well.

She was 88 lbs on her wedding day. She birthed 8 babies naturally and all of her babies (except maybe 1, I believe) were over 8.5lbs. Your outside stature has nothing to do with your insides That was back in the day though where they really tried not to do c-sections because the higher incision was more dangerous. It was only when they came up with the lower transverse incision did c-sections become more popular. Some doctors overdo it now, however.

[laundry_queen]

24. I wouldn't tell you that you were a failure

I would tell you that you don't have a deformity and that often doctors don't know how to 'manage' labour so their 'small hips' reason is a catch all term that gets most women to comply with a c-section. With a different doctor, or a different 'managing of labour' you may have had a different outcome. It's impossible to say.

I was also told there was NO WAY I'd ever birth a baby, since my 1st was not even 7lbs and after 30 hours of labour I couldn't get her out. I was told I likely had an 'issue' with my pelvis, that my pelvis was 'contracted'. I was told I'd need c-sections for the rest of my births.

Well, I did some research and found out that there is really no way to tell how a pelvis will work in labour and there is NO realiable way to measure the pelvic inlet and outlet before labour. Besides, most babies' heads are extremely pliable in labour. Anyhow, I found a doctor who was willing to work with me and I had few issues when I delivered my 2nd baby vaginally after 17 hours of labour (only about 8 of that active). She was bigger than my first. Her head was a whole inch in diameter bigger than my first as well. The difference? her head position. My first was face up and her head was tilted, my second was not, she came out the 'right' way. Some midwives and doctors know how to deal with it better than others. Most are not even trained in it.

The reason I say this is not because I'm trying to make you feel bad. I went on to have 2 more c-sections, planned, for several (weak, imo) reasons, and I don't like being told I'm a failure either. And yeah, I've heard it implied even from some friends - if ONLY I'd trusted in the process more, if ONLY I'd exercised more, weighed less, ate vegan, did these stretches, did that meditation, took those herbs and on and on and on. Bottom line - no women should ever be ashamed of the way they chose to give birth. Ever.

HowEVER. I don't like how so many doctors are getting away with such a large amount of c-sections. I've been told by some doctors that I must not care about my baby if I didn't chose that second c-section. I've been treated as a 'vessel' for a healthy baby - as if that was the only thing that mattered, and that I, as a grown woman, didn't count for shit because I was pregnant. What if my baby WASN'T healthy? Would that mean my c-section was for naught? What if I died from a c-section complication? I had other kids at home... Complications from c-sections are one of the leading causes of death for postpartum women. Yes, c-sections save lives, but the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction and I believe it is now costing lives as well. Bottom line - I think women should get to make an informed choice. Yes, there will be cases where the doctor has to make a decision, like in an emergency, but having been on the receiving end of doctors denying me choice over how I'd like to deliver my child, this is a very touch subject with me. Choice, to me, is as important at the end of pregnancy as it is at the beginning.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

27. I have a nursing textbook that says otherwise.

There is a reliable way to measure the pelvic inlet and outlet before labor.
An experienced doctor can tell by the internal examination with his/her hands.

I won't look it up now but there are exact dimensions which must be met or exceeded for a baby's head to go through the hole in the pelvis.

[laundry_queen]

29. Well, I've done a lot of studying about this.

And my doctor agrees, there is no reliable way to measure the pelvic dimensions, not even with ultrasound. I spent 5 years doing nothing but studying about birth. So much so my doctor told me I likely knew more about birth than he did and he basically let me run the show for my 2 middle births.

Here's a good article that explains it:

http://www.brooksidepress.org/Products/Military_OBGYN/Textbook/AbnormalLandD/fetopelvic_disproportion.htm

[renie408]

18. No shit. You should meet my kids. n/t

[roody]

20. knr

[Yavin4]

21. Loretta Lynn's "The Pill"

Randi Rhodes played this on her show on Friday:

Loretta Lynn was married at 14.

[XemaSab]

22. Michelle Duggar had serious complications during her last two pregnancies.

If the quiverfull spokeswoman is having problems, that should tell us all something.

[erinlough]

23. Didn't Santorum just come out against pre-natal screening while speaking in Ohio?

I believe his point was that early pre-natal tests which showed problems with the baby could (do?) cause more mothers to choose abortions. That is amazing ignorance right there.

[laundry_queen]

25. Especially considering

that he probably wants to cut every single program that would help out families with special needs kids. The disconnect is astounding.

[quaker bill]

28. My guess is that Santorum's church

spends little time reading the "Song of Solomon", one of the least studied books in the Bible. Most puritan derived protestant groups rarely acknowledge its existence. There is a bit too much "joy of sex" in it.

Oh, and the notion that BC makes for "consequence free sex" can only be believed by those who have not tried it much. Unintended pregnancy is only one small part of the consequences of sex and usually not a big one. They also seem to think that casual sex did not happen before BC, there are tons of historical studies to debunk that one, and little proof that BC actually made it more common, except for perhaps a short period after its introduction.

[treestar]

31. Very good insight

Something not everyone thinks of. It's not just choosing to have fewer children, but that having fewer children is better for our health.

[Kber]

32. Yes - which is the entire reason Birth Control is considered "Preventative" health care

I'm sure Santorum and co. think it's all about getting laid, but it's actually about saving lives.