c section or natural? is one better for the baby?

Question

for the baby..is one better? is there any effects from getting one and not the other? does anyone know the percentage or anything of babies who have been delievered naturally vs. c section?

not asking because im pregnant; my mom had a c section with me and i was wondering if it changed anything or if i was one of few.

Answer 1

If I'm understanding correctly, you are asking whether *you* are different as a result your own birth by cesarean. So I'm not going to go into the immediate medical risks to the baby. If you're interested in that, you can read about it here: http://ican-online.net/resources/white_papers/wp_electivecs2.pdf. Research has shown cesareans to be riskier for babies than vaginal births, no matter how "safe" we like to think they are.

So, are YOU different as a result of your birth by cesarean? It's absolutely possible. Research has shown that babies born by cesarean go on to have more food allergy problems later in life than babies born vaginally, likely because of the lack of exposure to the vaginal flora beneficial to babies' digestive tract.

Many mothers and birth professionals alike hold a strong belief in the idea that the way one is born has a lasting psychological impact on the person. Nature intended babies to be born naturally, without the influence of anesthetic drugs, and to be held skin-to-skin by their mothers as soon as they are born to promote the bonding process and provide lifesaving immunities from the mother's colostrum.

That doesn't happen to a baby born by cesarean (although it often doesn't happen to a baby born vaginally in a hospital either). Instead, the baby is usually wisked away to the nursery, heels poked, limbs prodded, and laid on a stiff metal or plastic bassinet, and given artificial food. The baby's experience of birth is drastically different from that of a baby born naturally (and respectfully, such as babies born in out-of-hospital settings). After a cesarean, the baby often doesn't see the mother until several hours after birth, so the bonding process is hampered.

Cesarean babies also have more difficulty breastfeeding (as do cesarean moms getting it to work). As a result, the baby gets artificial food if the breastfeeding relationship fails, and lacks the special bonding with the mother that he or she would otherwise have had for a year or two.

So is it possible you were affected for the worse by the way you were born? Absolutely, but it's not a pleasant thought.

To answer the second part of your question, the figure today is 1 in 3. Last year, 1 in 3 babies were born by cesarean. Watch "1 in 3": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dRF4RtdJdo .

Answer 2

Well, a c-section obviously carries more risks for the mother (hemorrhaging, infection, etc). I had no choice with my first, her heartbeat was coming and going during labor and I was only dilated 3cm, so she was born via c-section (good thing, too, she was 9lbs. 10oz).

There are risks for the baby using either method; personally, I think natural birth is best. It's the way nature designed your body to give birth. However, there are situations where a c-section would be better (fetal heartbeat issues, placenta previa - where placenta is covering your cervix, etc).

I'm sure your doctor will be more than happy to discuss this with you, too.

Answer 3

Natural is always better for both baby and mother. C-sections there are increased risk of complications and should only be used when necessary and not as an option to just do it because people fear to have a baby vaginally and are trying to justify some odd reason to have a c-section.

Answer 4

I did one of each. Both were fine. natural is better as the baby going through the birth canal fires up his nerve endings (it is a tight squeeze) that he needs for out here. But for c-section you can do that manually. that is also why the make the c-section lines so small now

Answer 5

There are pros & cons to each. I had always heard/read that natural is better for the baby, there is less chance of baby being born with liquid in its lungs due to the squeeze through the birth canal, etc. However, there are some risks for the baby in a vaginal delivery too, such as possible distress & oxygen deprivation if the delivery is not progressing quickly enough. The pros & cons of each are highlighted on page 3 of this article: http://www.babycenter.com/0_elective-cesarean-is-it-for-you_1498696.bc?page=1&articleId=1498696

Answer 6

i don't know about one being better for the baby than the other but I could say that if there were complications then c-section would be better

In australia the stats show that one in four or 25% are c-section births for varying reasons but not many are for cosmetic 'too posh to push' reason!

Answer 7

I have had my first c section when i was 20 and the 2nd when i was 23.The doctor recommended c section because my pelvis was not suitable for natural birth.Although c section is much more expensive,i think it is worth it because u can choose your baby's birthdate,choose not to go into painful labor,give birth in just a matter of minutes,refrain from straining the baby,allowable to have 3-4 kids only and a gap of 3 years..But it will leave a scar which will heal from 3 mos-3 years though,but it's not that bad...

Answer 8

About 1 in 4 births are C-section these days. They are less traumatic for the baby because the baby is not squeezed through the birth canal. They are more difficult for the mom to recover from, because she has to undergo major surgery.