You guys are taking an incredibly uncharitable perspective here.
He isn’t glorifying pain or demeaning C-sections; he’s expressing pride in his daughter for making a difficult, personal choice to go through a natural birth. He’s acknowledging the strength it took to face that process, not implying that other paths are lesser.
Not everything has to be filtered through the lens of outrage. Let people celebrate personal courage without assuming it’s a critique of everyone else.
The comfort of having a c-section? Does anyone really believe that. Well, at least anyone capable of having a baby. What a tone-deaf turd.
Most people think they just make a little cut and a baby comes out. They have no clue of the absolute horrorshow a c-section entails.
I know there are a lot of people who look down on c sections or epidurals but without context this quote doesn't really come off like that to me. C-section vs vag delivery is really more of an issue for the woman if elective or the health of the baby/mom if emergent. Either way, it's between mom and doctor, no one else's concern.
I mean, "in a world where everyone chooses comfort my kid chose a natural birth" absolutely is looking down on women who opt for C-sections. He's Indian, we're very judgy about this sort of thing
Are there people that opts for a c-section as a first option without a medical condition?
I have never heard someone choosing the c-section as their first choice. It is usually when there is no other choices.
Gotcha, I can see that. Your last sentence reminds me of a doctor i used to work with. Her parents were from India and when she would say something critical of herself or someone else she would generally do it in her mom's accent. A lot of people probably judge themselves in their parents' voices but don't notice because they have the same accent as their parents.
Meh. If he said he was proud of his wife for running a marathon despite the pain, it wouldn't be an issue. Same thing. As long as it was her choice, he can be proud of it.
It’s his daughter, but why be proud of someone for choosing unnecessary pain? If he were proud of her choosing natural birth because of the health benefits it imparts on the child fine, but it’s like saying I’m proud of you for running a marathon with a broken ankle. He’s not proud of the act, he’s proud of her suffering.
but it’s like saying I’m proud of you for running a marathon with a broken ankle.
Woman athletes persevere with injuries and finish competitions all the time. I can't imagine shaming an athlete who chose to continue despite the pain.
Duh, of course. But way to miss my point entirely.
I got the point and refuted it. You can't understand that some women will choose a challenge.
Joan Benoit competed in the 84 Olympics despite having knee surgery two weeks earlier. She chose the pain.
You’re still entirely missing the point. I hope for your sake you’re just attempting to be intentionally inflammatory, and not that you’re truly this ignorant.
Stop saying I'm missing the point and explain what you mean.
What is your point? What exactly am I missing?
She is UNNECESSARILY choosing pain for NO OTHER REASON than to be in pain (according to the info in the post - again, if she did it for baby’s health benefits this would not be my stance) and it’s being lauded.
I’m going to run a marathon with two good ankles. Great - it’s hard enough already. Oh wait, let me break my ankle with a hammer so people will be MORE proud of me for running it with smashed bones even though there is NO BENEFIT to adding that additional VOLUNTARY SELF-INFLICTED suffering.
Does that clarify it? Yes, if you have a goal and get injured, or have additional challenges and choose to push through them, that’s great, but to cause yourself pain and harm without reason or benefit should not be seen as something to be proud of.
She is UNNECESSARILY choosing pain for NO OTHER REASON than to be in pain
Running a marathon ISN'T NECESSARY. RUNNING A MARATHON AFTER KNEE SURGERY ISN'T NECESSARY. This isn't hypothetical. I gave you two examples with links. Those runners chose pain for no reason. My daughter wants to run a marathon. I don't understand it. I weakly suggest she should go easier on herself. She is choosing pain for the personal challenge.
You aren't arguing in good faith.
You are STILL missing the point.
Let's apply your marathon analogy to this situation. Your daughter's signed up to run a trail marathon. There are comfortable, ergonomic, rugged footwear options available that are specifically and scientifically designed to cushion runners' feet, protect them from debris, pebbles, dirt etc. on the trail, provide them with extra grip, and reduce the strain of long-distance trail running. You can afford to get the best of the best of these shoes to make sure her running experience is as low-strain and as comfortable as it can be.
Your daughter has instead chosen to eschew all of these and run completely barefoot and unprotected on boiling hot asphalt and uneven trails strewn with sharp stones and animal droppings, because it's "natural". She has arrived at the finish line, limping with a twisted ankle and her soles bleeding all over the place from cuts and scratches galore.
For some reason you're trumpeting that you're proud of her for doing this and not opting for "the comfort of trail running shoes", when you have absolutely zero say or opinion in this situation.
The rest of us are looking at you like you've got two heads.
Do you understand now?
As I said in the very first post, "As long as it was her choice."
I can warn her to not do it. But if she chose to do it, I would still be proud of her. I support my children no matter what. Because what is stupid to you might be important to them. Your child isn't your possession to control.
It all depends on, if natural birth has positive effects on the newborn. If it has, your pov is wrong. If not, you are right. And since we don't know for sure, nobody has the right to look down upon others opinions.
Everything is "us against them" nowadays. Whey can't we accept that other people might come to different conclusions?
If I recall correctly there were studies regarding newborn exposition to their first microbiome. It was found that through natural birth the infants were basically automaticallz inoculated with their mother's microbiome, while those delivered through c section didn't (found the study! https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5648605/)
However it was hypothesized that this inoculation could be done manually via swapping the inner walls of the birth canal / vaginal walls and then expose the newborn mouth to those swaps.
Long story short - although there are some benefits to a natural birth, in the end the health of mother and child are most important. One part of the mental health of the mother can be the fear of the pain of birth. It's her and her physicians decision and although as partners the men by their side should be there for her, they don't get a say in how the circumstances he participated inducing will end (same goes for lesbian / diverse partners although they might not have taken a biological part in the start of the pregnancy).
Her body, her agency. Everything else should be coordinated beforehand as goes for every emergencies
Natural birth does have positive affects on the baby; microbiome exposure, squeezing the baby during pelvic contractions helps clear out fluids from the lungs, pelvic contractions kick-start lactation.
It's also better for the mother, in terms of recovery time. Cesarean leads to permanent reductions in abdominal strength.
That said, give people information and options and let them do what they want.
