The "your body won't create a baby too big for you" statement bothers me

itsmevkb

I see this all the time in posts and it bothers me.  Yes, actually, women's bodies create babies all the time which are too big for them to deliver vaginally.  Just because yours didn't with your previous pregnancies doesn't mean that every woman on the planet will have the same experience.  Or, just because you have a friend who is 4 feet tall, 80 pounds and she vaginally delivered a 12 pound baby doesn't meant that every woman can.

I'm not going to get into the debate over whether or not women should have inductions for fear of a big baby because I think that is between her and her doctor, but I just think to state universally to women who come on her asking questions that don't worry, your body won't make a baby too large is flat out incorrect.  

I say as this as someone who delivered a not small but not ginormous, 8lb 3ounce baby who got stuck during the delivery.   So yea, I know that sometimes babies actually are too big or don't come out just right.

monkeyqueen

My sister's first baby was literally too big for her.    Her daughter literally got "stuck" on the way out and she ended up needing a emergency c-section.   This is pretty rare, though (I think).

ShandaLea

I agree totally!!  DD#1 only weighed 5lb7oz and I barely got her out with the help of the vacuum but I have a small pelvis

jessicaclare

Considering that a baby is the combination of TWO different people's DNA, and only one of those two is actually the person delivering, yeah, this is ludicrous to me. Its also not always the size of the baby as a whole, but sometimes the size of the head or breadth of the shoulders, or even baby's position, that can make all the difference.

jerilyn&dave

Agreed.  Saying our bodies can't create a baby that is too large for us is like saying that it's impossible for our bodies to create a child that has disabilities.  Yet that can and does happen.  The logic just isn't there.  There's a lot that can physically get in the way of a baby 'fitting' properly.  Yes, in an ideal world we would all be able to deliver our healthy babies vaginally, but that's not always possible.  It's an ideal, and in my opinion women should not be belittled for having this issue. 

It is possible for a tiny woman to give birth to an 11 lb baby (my tiny, tiny aunt did so); however, it also caused some really massive tearing (literally as bad as one can tear).  She should have had a c-section, but for some reason her doctor didn't do one.  She was left with horrible complications, and actually had to go into surgery anyways to repair the damage.  So if there's an issue with size, please don't assume that its a non-issue.  I wouldn't want any other woman to have to go through what my aunt went through!

JoBieger05

I agree. And I'm totally lurking, but my DD was 8lbs 5oz and she got stuck. My body isn't made to deliver a baby vaginally, but we didn't find that out until her head was out, but the rest of her couldn't come.

liv97

agree.... but lots of times babies get "stuck" or are "too big" to fit because of the ridiculous way we give birth in this country.  if moms were able to labor/birth in water, standing up, on balls, etc., instead of being forced to labor in the worst position of all, i think many fewer babies would get "stuck"

Treasa

liv97:

agree.... but lots of times babies get "stuck" or are "too big" to fit because of the ridiculous way we give birth in this country.  if moms were able to labor/birth in water, standing up, on balls, etc., instead of being forced to labor in the worst position of all, i think many fewer babies would get "stuck"

itsmevkb

liv97:

agree.... but lots of times babies get "stuck" or are "too big" to fit because of the ridiculous way we give birth in this country.  if moms were able to labor/birth in water, standing up, on balls, etc., instead of being forced to labor in the worst position of all, i think many fewer babies would get "stuck"

I agree that sometimes position may play a role.  I actually liked laboring on my back and in bed and didn't want to be in water or on a ball, etc.  So, yes, I suppose that could have played a role in my son's shoulder getting stuck, but I'll never really know and by the time it was happening it was too late to change anything.  It may have been because I was on my back or it could have happened no matter what position I had been in.  

When I had my daughter I also was on my back and she came out with no problems and was actually larger than my son.  Go figure.

abell77

I do understand what you're saying, but it bothers me when medical professionals automatically assume that a woman won't be able to deliver a child because they think the baby is too big, and then they do a c-section and the baby is a normal size.  So, it goes both ways.

Jake Ian's Mommy

liv97:

agree.... but lots of times babies get "stuck" or are "too big" to fit because of the ridiculous way we give birth in this country.  if moms were able to labor/birth in water, standing up, on balls, etc., instead of being forced to labor in the worst position of all, i think many fewer babies would get "stuck"

This, this, this!

mrsashkennedy

liv97:

agree.... but lots of times babies get "stuck" or are "too big" to fit because of the ridiculous way we give birth in this country.  if moms were able to labor/birth in water, standing up, on balls, etc., instead of being forced to labor in the worst position of all, i think many fewer babies would get "stuck"

Also agree. There are many positions that can un-stick a stuck baby, IF you're allowed to move and try them.

monkeyqueen

mrsashkennedy:

liv97:

agree.... but lots of times babies get "stuck" or are "too big" to fit because of the ridiculous way we give birth in this country.  if moms were able to labor/birth in water, standing up, on balls, etc., instead of being forced to labor in the worst position of all, i think many fewer babies would get "stuck"

Also agree. There are many positions that can un-stick a stuck baby, IF you're allowed to move and try them.

Yep.   But, some babies do just get "stuck" regardless of labouring/pushing positions.     I definitely think that Dr's/midwive's should be pursuing all alternatives before going to c-section.     Olivia was a bit big for me.    Even with squatting while pushing and other positions, she still wasn't coming.   So, my dr.'s finally resorted (with my request) to the vacuum.   It helped.     

itsmevkb

mrsashkennedy:

liv97:

agree.... but lots of times babies get "stuck" or are "too big" to fit because of the ridiculous way we give birth in this country.  if moms were able to labor/birth in water, standing up, on balls, etc., instead of being forced to labor in the worst position of all, i think many fewer babies would get "stuck"

Also agree. There are many positions that can un-stick a stuck baby, IF you're allowed to move and try them.

But part of the issue is that by the time the head is delivered and you realize that the shoulder is stuck it's not as though you just have all the time in the world to move around and re-position.

Also, I agree that doctor's shouldn't be scheduling c-section purely because they think the baby is too big since size if very hard to judge, but again, I also believe that decision is for the mom to make with her doctor.  My doctor knows my entire obstetrical history and I know he wouldn't recommend something to me unless he felt it was in my best interest and in the best interest of the baby.  If I had a doctor of whom I thought otherwise, I would get a new doctor.

novilise

I have to admit that this statement always confuses me a bit, too. It seems too clear-cut.

I think in most cases it probably is a matter of something that just didn't go right....or just a pickier pelvis...maybe a baby could be birthed, just not this one and under these particular circumstances. But, sometimes, that is a lot to get just right. So, yeah, I've never really agreed with the idea that your body won't create a baby that's too big for you.

Also, it confuses me a bit when people are really upset because they feel broken...that their body failed them. Maybe it did. I don't know. But this isn't a perfect world, so, yeah, our bodies can fail us sometimes. For instance, people are born with bad eyes. It's just part of living...and dying. 

I don't know for sure how to articulate all of this, but everytime I see those two statements, I do scratch my head a bit, too. 

Jen&Peter

I loved my c-sections and thank god and the world for medical technology! where would we be without it?

mrsashkennedy

itsmevkb:

mrsashkennedy:

liv97:

agree.... but lots of times babies get "stuck" or are "too big" to fit because of the ridiculous way we give birth in this country.  if moms were able to labor/birth in water, standing up, on balls, etc., instead of being forced to labor in the worst position of all, i think many fewer babies would get "stuck"

Also agree. There are many positions that can un-stick a stuck baby, IF you're allowed to move and try them.

But part of the issue is that by the time the head is delivered and you realize that the shoulder is stuck it's not as though you just have all the time in the world to move around and re-position.

Also, I agree that doctor's shouldn't be scheduling c-section purely because they think the baby is too big since size if very hard to judge, but again, I also believe that decision is for the mom to make with her doctor.  My doctor knows my entire obstetrical history and I know he wouldn't recommend something to me unless he felt it was in my best interest and in the best interest of the baby.  If I had a doctor of whom I thought otherwise, I would get a new doctor.

 

Sometimes, maybe, but I've heard many cases of stuck shoulders( head already out) where a switch to squatting, or all fours, was able to pop the shoulder right out of stuck and the baby comes straight out. Sometimes the moms are too tired, or the hospital won't let them, but it usually only takes a little while. And if they catch it soon enough, it's safer than pushing against a stuck baby for a prolonged period of time, which could then lead to decels and c-sects.

indytara

Seeing as I think it was my reply that got quoted here...I'd like to clarify that my statement said "your body PROBABLY won't create a baby too big for your body to handle".

Meaning = yes, it sure does happen....but by gosh, the number of women that cannot physically birth their baby is FAR FAR lower than those who can.

Maybe I live in a hippie dippie world but I'd like to believe that after thousands of years of having babies unassisted without any medical intervention whatsoever...humans are amazing creatures.  Its amazing to me that our species has survived this long and managed to keep going without the use of anesthesia, c-sections, forceps, vacuums, monitors, etc...  until the last 100 years.  That being said...I'm sure glad I live in an era where these tools are available to me just in case!!!

But yes, I do stand by my original statement.  As long as mother and baby are healthy the odds of having a child that can fit out your vag are pretty darn high.

WellMyKel

abell77:

I do understand what you're saying, but it bothers me when medical professionals automatically assume that a woman won't be able to deliver a child because they think the baby is too big, and then they do a c-section and the baby is a normal size.  So, it goes both ways.

Totally agree.  So many women are told they should give up on delivering vaginally before they've even had a trial of labor.  It's one of the factors causing c-section rates to continue skyward .  I hope it's a message we hear a lot more often.   A woman's pelvis expands during delivery.  It's not a matter of 10lbs or whatever being a weight cutoff for vaginal delivery.  Women tear with 5 lb babies.  Half of shoulder dystocia babies are, forgive me here doing this from memory, something like 8lbs or less.   Whoever mentioned that the way American women typically give birth (on their backs, unable to move) is a huge negative on the outcome of their labors was spot on.  Please, please, please, keep reminding women that barring medical conditions like gestation diabetes and the like, their bodies very likely can vaginally deliver the baby it grew.

laurasuzanne2006

indytara:

Seeing as I think it was my reply that got quoted here...I'd like to clarify that my statement said "your body PROBABLY won't create a baby too big for your body to handle".

Meaning = yes, it sure does happen....but by gosh, the number of women that cannot physically birth their baby is FAR FAR lower than those who can.

Maybe I live in a hippie dippie world but I'd like to believe that after thousands of years of having babies unassisted without any medical intervention whatsoever...humans are amazing creatures.  Its amazing to me that our species has survived this long and managed to keep going without the use of anesthesia, c-sections, forceps, vacuums, monitors, etc...  until the last 100 years.  That being said...I'm sure glad I live in an era where these tools are available to me just in case!!!

But yes, I do stand by my original statement.  As long as mother and baby are healthy the odds of having a child that can fit out your vag are pretty darn high.

totally agree with this.  Yes, i think there are exceptions.  but as several PP mentioned repositioning obviously helps a baby get through your birth canal.  If you stay in one position how the heck is the baby supposed to move through that narrow space?  Another PP also menitoned that a decent amount of time shoulder dystocia can be resolved by squatting, etc.  I've heard too many stories of doctors inducing/csection first time moms because they just felt the baby was too big.  I just don't know why someone wouldn't even try a normal vaginal delivery esp for first time.  If they really are "too big" after laboring sure they won't come out.  Can't stand the assumption that a baby will just be too big. 

plumag

My head was too large for my mom to deliver - 52 hours of labor and me slamming my head against her pubic bone led to a C section that should have been done earlier.  I wasn't too large weight wise (8 lbs 12 oz) but my head circumference was too much.

luvtinyhands

I also believe that yes, women have done this for thousands of years. But I also believe that our genetics have changed throughout the years. Primarily due to the mixing of cultures. And this can cause some complications in the birthing process (ie. pelvis position/shape, baby size or just head size). Some women can carry a baby without a problem, but their pelvis isnt capable of delivery. Like a PP said, you have 2 genes combining and make 1 baby with it's own individual genes. And it may or may not mesh well with your genes. Luck of the draw really. So I dont believe a big baby necessarily means difficult delivery, because a small baby may not fit either.

itsmevkb

indytara:

Seeing as I think it was my reply that got quoted here...I'd like to clarify that my statement said "your body PROBABLY won't create a baby too big for your body to handle".

Meaning = yes, it sure does happen....but by gosh, the number of women that cannot physically birth their baby is FAR FAR lower than those who can.

Maybe I live in a hippie dippie world but I'd like to believe that after thousands of years of having babies unassisted without any medical intervention whatsoever...humans are amazing creatures.  Its amazing to me that our species has survived this long and managed to keep going without the use of anesthesia, c-sections, forceps, vacuums, monitors, etc...  until the last 100 years.  That being said...I'm sure glad I live in an era where these tools are available to me just in case!!!

But yes, I do stand by my original statement.  As long as mother and baby are healthy the odds of having a child that can fit out your vag are pretty darn high.

 I wasn't quoting you as I do know you said "probably."  It was a culmination of that post and others in the past that got me to thinking about this more.  There have been a bunch of posts over the months with responses that outright stated that your body can't make a baby that's too big and I just wanted to point out that yes it can.  Normally it doesn't happen but it can.  And, although I have had a birth with a shoulder dystocia, I was still able to birth my baby vaginally and thankfully he was unharmed (although he did have stay in the NICU) so I'm definitely not saying let's all go sign-up for c-sections, I'm just saying that there can be issues, and scary ones during delivery, and sometimes those are related to the size of the baby or the size of the mom.

CCinLove

indytara:

Maybe I live in a hippie dippie world but I'd like to believe that after thousands of years of having babies unassisted without any medical intervention whatsoever...humans are amazing creatures.  Its amazing to me that our species has survived this long and managed to keep going without the use of anesthesia, c-sections, forceps, vacuums, monitors, etc...  until the last 100 years.  That being said...I'm sure glad I live in an era where these tools are available to me just in case!!! 

The species as a whole survived, but far more women died in childbirth.

And while many women who end up with a c-section may have EVENTUALLY gotten their child out vaginally, I'd much prefer a c-section to a 4th degree tear. 

laurasuzanne2006

CCinLove:

indytara:

Maybe I live in a hippie dippie world but I'd like to believe that after thousands of years of having babies unassisted without any medical intervention whatsoever...humans are amazing creatures.  Its amazing to me that our species has survived this long and managed to keep going without the use of anesthesia, c-sections, forceps, vacuums, monitors, etc...  until the last 100 years.  That being said...I'm sure glad I live in an era where these tools are available to me just in case!!! 

The species as a whole survived, but far more women died in childbirth.

And while many women who end up with a c-section may have EVENTUALLY gotten their child out vaginally, I'd much prefer a c-section to a 4th degree tear. 

really???  Don't get me wrong, I haven't given birth yet.  But i think i would rather be very very sore and have stitches and other complications that go with a 4th degree tear than go through major surgery

novilise

I, personally, would rather have a c-section than a 4th degree tear, too.

However, in the grand picture, there are more mortality factors with c-section complications than with vaginal complications. So that is something to consider.

Is it worth the chance that quality of life could be lowered or that you could lose your life? That is what I keep asking myself, but I do feel that it is somewhat uneven because the risk to quality of life( bad vaginal tear) is probably higher than the risk of death (c-section).

I've had issues in those regions down below before, though, and I did find it worse, a lot worse, than my c-section recovery. But then, everyone heals differently from a c-section, too.

There is always so much to consider and it can be rather subjective and personal. 

MommySteph2009

I agree, my DS was almost too big for me to deliver, I had to have a suction used.

I've advised my prenatal team so far of this and how I was induced at 38 weeks due to DS's size and it is the hospital policy where I am delivering to not induce because of size until the baby is over 10 lsb, at which I told them I physically could not deliver a 10 lb baby. = pushing me to have a c-section.  I fired my OB team and am seeing a new one next week.

indytara

laurasuzanne2006:

CCinLove:

indytara:

Maybe I live in a hippie dippie world but I'd like to believe that after thousands of years of having babies unassisted without any medical intervention whatsoever...humans are amazing creatures.  Its amazing to me that our species has survived this long and managed to keep going without the use of anesthesia, c-sections, forceps, vacuums, monitors, etc...  until the last 100 years.  That being said...I'm sure glad I live in an era where these tools are available to me just in case!!! 

The species as a whole survived, but far more women died in childbirth.

And while many women who end up with a c-section may have EVENTUALLY gotten their child out vaginally, I'd much prefer a c-section to a 4th degree tear. 

really???  Don't get me wrong, I haven't given birth yet.  But i think i would rather be very very sore and have stitches and other complications that go with a 4th degree tear than go through major surgery

lol....I actually agree with part about rather having c-section than the 4th degree tearing.  Ouchy...actually neither option is optimal but I'd def choose the c-section!  So many women come out on the tri boards with their boxing gloves on!  

Like I said...I'm SOOOOO glad I live in the time of these interventions.   And yes, a lot of women have died because of childbirth in the past...and sadly right now too...in the US many still die.  We have a HORRIBLE maternal mortality rate compared to other developed countries.

https://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/12/maternal-mortality-rates-millennium-development-goals

So really...as long as me and my child get out of this whole experience alive and healthy, no matter HOW they get him out of me...I will be a really happy camper.

katchowski

indytara:

laurasuzanne2006:

CCinLove:

indytara:

Maybe I live in a hippie dippie world but I'd like to believe that after thousands of years of having babies unassisted without any medical intervention whatsoever...humans are amazing creatures.  Its amazing to me that our species has survived this long and managed to keep going without the use of anesthesia, c-sections, forceps, vacuums, monitors, etc...  until the last 100 years.  That being said...I'm sure glad I live in an era where these tools are available to me just in case!!! 

The species as a whole survived, but far more women died in childbirth.

And while many women who end up with a c-section may have EVENTUALLY gotten their child out vaginally, I'd much prefer a c-section to a 4th degree tear. 

really???  Don't get me wrong, I haven't given birth yet.  But i think i would rather be very very sore and have stitches and other complications that go with a 4th degree tear than go through major surgery

lol....I actually agree with part about rather having c-section than the 4th degree tearing.  Ouchy...actually neither option is optimal but I'd def choose the c-section!  So many women come out on the tri boards with their boxing gloves on!  

Like I said...I'm SOOOOO glad I live in the time of these interventions.   And yes, a lot of women have died because of childbirth in the past...and sadly right now too...in the US many still die.  We have a HORRIBLE maternal mortality rate compared to other developed countries.

https://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/12/maternal-mortality-rates-millennium-development-goals

So really...as long as me and my child get out of this whole experience alive and healthy, no matter HOW they get him out of me...I will be a really happy camper.

I agree!  I am so happy that I live in an era were the phrase "died in childbirth" is not so common.  I think we need to work on our maternal mortality rate, but it is not even close to how high it was 100 years ago.  Also due to a less hearty diet 100 years ago, most women were not having babies as big as the ones we have today.   

 

samfish2bcrab

indytara:

Seeing as I think it was my reply that got quoted here...I'd like to clarify that my statement said "your body PROBABLY won't create a baby too big for your body to handle".

Meaning = yes, it sure does happen....but by gosh, the number of women that cannot physically birth their baby is FAR FAR lower than those who can.

Maybe I live in a hippie dippie world but I'd like to believe that after thousands of years of having babies unassisted without any medical intervention whatsoever...humans are amazing creatures.  Its amazing to me that our species has survived this long and managed to keep going without the use of anesthesia, c-sections, forceps, vacuums, monitors, etc...  until the last 100 years.  That being said...I'm sure glad I live in an era where these tools are available to me just in case!!!

But yes, I do stand by my original statement.  As long as mother and baby are healthy the odds of having a child that can fit out your vag are pretty darn high.

Look up mortality rates during the last two centuries or in countries where these medical procedures are unavailable.

laurasuzanne2006

samfish2bcrab:

indytara:

Seeing as I think it was my reply that got quoted here...I'd like to clarify that my statement said "your body PROBABLY won't create a baby too big for your body to handle".

Meaning = yes, it sure does happen....but by gosh, the number of women that cannot physically birth their baby is FAR FAR lower than those who can.

Maybe I live in a hippie dippie world but I'd like to believe that after thousands of years of having babies unassisted without any medical intervention whatsoever...humans are amazing creatures.  Its amazing to me that our species has survived this long and managed to keep going without the use of anesthesia, c-sections, forceps, vacuums, monitors, etc...  until the last 100 years.  That being said...I'm sure glad I live in an era where these tools are available to me just in case!!!

But yes, I do stand by my original statement.  As long as mother and baby are healthy the odds of having a child that can fit out your vag are pretty darn high.

Look up mortality rates during the last two centuries or in countries where these medical procedures are unavailable.

Better yet look at rates in countries that are more selective with the use of interventions.  Places that have them if need be but don't automatically use them like in the US.

thequeeenbee

ITA. It is absolutely NOT TRUE that your body will not create a baby that is too large for you to deliver.

I successfully delivered DS (8lbs8oz) vaginally after over 4 hours of pushing, with him crowning the entire time. I also had horrible tearing and lost so much blood that I required a blood transfusion. 

But the worst part was when he suffered a brain hemmorage 1 month later due to a skull fracture from birth that we didn't know about. Something had to give; my pelvis or his skull. His skull gave way.

Did I do it? Yes. Would we both most likely have been better off if he had been delivered via c/s? Heck yeah.

That being said, I'm planning on delivering vaginally this time around as well as long as baby isn't expected to be over 9 lbs. Hopefully my body has changed since giving birth last time. But if anything seems to be going the way that it did during my last delivery I will not hesitate to have an emergency c/s in the least. 

jerilyn&dave

laurasuzanne2006:

CCinLove:

indytara:

Maybe I live in a hippie dippie world but I'd like to believe that after thousands of years of having babies unassisted without any medical intervention whatsoever...humans are amazing creatures.  Its amazing to me that our species has survived this long and managed to keep going without the use of anesthesia, c-sections, forceps, vacuums, monitors, etc...  until the last 100 years.  That being said...I'm sure glad I live in an era where these tools are available to me just in case!!! 

The species as a whole survived, but far more women died in childbirth.

And while many women who end up with a c-section may have EVENTUALLY gotten their child out vaginally, I'd much prefer a c-section to a 4th degree tear. 

really???  Don't get me wrong, I haven't given birth yet.  But i think i would rather be very very sore and have stitches and other complications that go with a 4th degree tear than go through major surgery

 Erm...just throwing this out there, but my mom is a midwife/RN and she's quite certain a 4th degree tear counts as major surgery.  So either way (c-section or serious tear), its major surgery...just a different one really.