A comment someone made today got me wondering whether or not people would consider my birth "natural"? I had to be induced because of low fluid, but the cervix softener did the trick and skyrocketed me into labor. I never ended up needing the pitocin, and didn't have any other type of medication. Not that it makes a bit of difference, just curious if this is considered a "natural" birth by other peoples standards?
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
There has been a lot of discussion on the Natural Birth board about what constitutes a natural birth. I guess it really varies on the person. Some people think that any intervention at all means your birth wasn't natural. (And by that definition, I think my home birth would be called "non-natural," because I had to have an IV due to dehydration!).
I think I would probably call yours a natural birth. A friend of mine had her water break early, but then ended up needing a foley bulb because she didn't start contracting soon enough. She didn't have any other interventions or pain meds, and I consider that natural. I don't think yours is that different.
I was induced because of low fluid also, but went pain-med-free. I consider that natural. Anyone who wants to argue with me, can suck it. I'd like to see them endure pitocin-induced contractions and go without meds.
I would consider it a med free natural labor. I hate all the nuances. I consider a labor "spontaneous" natural labor if it occurs without induction aids. But all labors without pain meds I consider natural. JMHO though. Yay for you! You did great!
9 angels in heaven-3 in my arms and 1 in the NICU Mono/di twin girls: Josephine born to heaven and Evangeline born Earthside at 25w
I was induced because of low fluid also, but went pain-med-free. I consider that natural. Anyone who wants to argue with me, can suck it. I'd like to see them endure pitocin-induced contractions and go without meds.
THIS!
I was induced with pitocin but otherwise was med/intervention free. I consider that natural.
Thanks for the feedback ladies! I really had never thought much about it until I heard a fellow mom telling someone today that if you were induced you couldn't say you had a natural birth. I had always considered myself having gone natural. At the end of the day, who the heck even cares? As long as the baby is here safe and sound that is all that matters! Thanks again!
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
Re: Did I have a "natural" birth?
I don't think I would say natural...as far as going into labor and delivery naturally.
But if you didn't have any pain meds I would say you had a "pain med free birth".
There has been a lot of discussion on the Natural Birth board about what constitutes a natural birth. I guess it really varies on the person. Some people think that any intervention at all means your birth wasn't natural. (And by that definition, I think my home birth would be called "non-natural," because I had to have an IV due to dehydration!).
I think I would probably call yours a natural birth. A friend of mine had her water break early, but then ended up needing a foley bulb because she didn't start contracting soon enough. She didn't have any other interventions or pain meds, and I consider that natural. I don't think yours is that different.
<a href="http://s5.photobucket.com/albums/y161/putalittlepolkainyourdot/?action=view
I would consider it a med free natural labor. I hate all the nuances. I consider a labor "spontaneous" natural labor if it occurs without induction aids. But all labors without pain meds I consider natural. JMHO though. Yay for you! You did great!
9 angels in heaven-3 in my arms and 1 in the NICU
Mono/di twin girls: Josephine born to heaven and Evangeline born Earthside at 25w
THIS!
I was induced with pitocin but otherwise was med/intervention free. I consider that natural.