2006-12-11 16:03:21 · 12 answers · asked by Stacy B 2 in Pregnancy & Parenting ➔ Newborn & Baby
I had my baby naturally, by the way. I just wanted to raise the issue.
2006-12-11 16:18:47 · update #1
Natural all the way!!
Natural childbirth is much better for the baby. The baby arrives in an undrugged and therefore much more active and alert state. It is amazing to see videotapes showing the differences between drugged and undrugged babies immediately after birth. Undrugged babies are active and responsive. Drugged babies can barely move. Also nondrugged babies nurse better and latch on easier and actully scooch up a mothers abdomen to find the breast.
I have seen these videos, but dont feel pressured, do what you feel comfortable with.
2006-12-11 16:16:48 · answer #1 · answered by Armywife 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Natural childbirth is definitly better for the baby. Unless there is something wrong with baby or the mother that the baby has to come out right away, then medicated birth could in a way be better for the baby. :)
2006-12-11 16:10:47 · answer #2 · answered by kasey06 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Depends on the mother.. An epidural is the only medication that does not effect the bloodstream, therefore does not take a toll on the baby. Well not 100% of the time, there are of course the rare occasions that it will lower or raise the blood pressure, and that effects the bebe. But natural birth can do the same. I can NOT handle pain to save my life. I stub my toe, and I cry for an hour. With my first son, I was so scared ofthe pain that I was having anxiety attacks, and hyperventalating that they couldn't calm me down, so they suggested have an epidural.
2006-12-11 16:37:33 · answer #3 · answered by dork_mastr 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It depends on what you mean by medicated birth.
IV pain medications can make the baby "sleepy" after birth and it can be much harder to get the baby to start nursing.
An epidural does not effect the baby at all. I think that it can be a good thing as it helps mom relax enough to allow the baby to come down into the birth canal. If mom is happier and in a better mental state, I cannot see how that can be a bad thing. Some women, with their first pregnancy, make all these grand statements about natural birth. Some of them do just fine, others do not have enough tolerence for the pain and discomfort that is involved in childbirth. For these women, an epidural is a better choice than IV pain drugs.
As long as both mom and baby are safe and healthy, I really don't think that it matters one way or the other!
With my first birth, they gave me an epidural because I was having contraction on top of contraction (They were about 45 seconds apart.) and since I was not able to relax my daughter would not come down. My daughter had NO problems nursing as the drugs from the epidural DO NOT get passed to the baby via blood stream or any other way.
With my second birth, I requested an epidural after being in labor for over 12 hours. My son had NO problems nursing as the drug from the epidural DO NOT get passed to the baby via the blood stream or any other way.
With the last birth, he came out via emergency C-section due to a placental abruption. He was out in less than 5 minutes after I was sedated. He came out screaming and quite alert.....not that I remember....and there were not any side effects for him with the anesthesia. It just took me a while to wake up enough to be able to nurse him.
2006-12-11 16:28:38 · answer #4 · answered by Mum to 3 cute kids 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
A birth with little or no medical intervention is best. Women's bodies were made to carry and deliver babies. There are some situations where it is necessary for intervention. Remember, the drugs that enter the mother's body during labour go into baby's also. An epidural will quite often slow down labour also causing harm to baby/mother.
2006-12-11 16:17:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Depends on the situation- if a vaginal birth puts mom or baby at risk, then obviously a c-section (including medication) is better for the baby. But in an otherwise healthy pregnancy and labor, then obviously no drugs is the best for baby.
2006-12-11 16:52:00 · answer #6 · answered by Jen 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There is no way you can be seriously asking that question?
Ummm no drugs, how would drugs be better? Painkillers depress breathing, slow labour, lower blood pressure, lead to pitocin which causes more intense contractions which can cause distress. Epidurals can also cause the nead for forcepts or vacuum extraction which can cause trauma to the baby. And on and on. Right down to effecting bonding and the mother's feeling empowered.
And natural labour... um the way nature intended. With no drugs, only natural adrenalin and oxytocin the hormone of love, whereas pitocin doesn't cross the brain blood barrier.
2006-12-11 16:11:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Unless there are complications, an unmedicated vaginal birth is better for both mom and baby. Having medications during the birth (including those administered via an epidural) can mess with baby's ability to nurse post-partum. (See the question I posted yesterday.)
2006-12-12 00:34:57 · answer #8 · answered by momma2mingbu 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
well by medical i'm assuming that you mean like a C section. it has been proven that children that are pushed out liver healthier than those who were cut through. some believe as they are being pushed out they encounter more bacteria which jump starts the baby's immune system. so yeah natural childbirth is better but sometimes doctors have no choice but to cut them out.
2006-12-11 16:12:48 · answer #9 · answered by gets flamed 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Natural....is the best..bcuz its natural..and anything created by nature is good..!
2006-12-11 16:17:58 · answer #10 · answered by Shivkumar 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋