More women pushing to give birth at home | The Columbus Dispatch

One mother chose home birth because it was cheaper than going to a hospital. Another gave birth at home because she has multiple sclerosis and feared unnecessary medical intervention.

[J Zendarski]

Giving birth at home? Bad idea. A very, very bad idea. From personal experaince I can count on more than 2 hands the number of children who'd still be here today if they had been delivered at a hospital. Medical care is essential in the birthing process, and being at an appropriate facility is vital to positive outcomes. For those who say that is not the case, ask someone who lost an infant within the confines of their home due to lack of medical assistance or intervention.

[Mathew]

To me, this would be like electing to have heart surgery at home. It's a no-brainer. Do it at the hospital--they have the medical resources THERE to handle life-threatening complications to both the mother and the baby. This isn't the 1800's.

[Home Birth]

We had a very comfortable home birth. The mother has to be comfortable with their body and the process. Doctors don't teach women anything about birth and make lots of money with drugs and ceasarian proceedures. Our midwife was informative, knowledgeable and experienced.

[Choice]

"Feminist machoism?" Really? My generation (the child-bearers now) is one with MUCH lower starting income than our parents and a proclivity toward saving, due to living through one recession already. The doctors construe their own anger at loss of revenue to a feminist plot against them, but if I live within 5 miles of Riverside (as I do) I will elect to have the child at home with a skilled midwife.

[PotStirrer]

Wow. some of these headlines are really pushing it.

[James]

Wow America. We sure have come a long way. Now we're back to birthing with someone to hold your hand, a piece of leather to bite down on, a bucket of hot water, and some sponges? Yikes.

[WHarkavy]

For me, I will continue to have my children in hospitals. With my first, I labored 27 hours and finally requiring an emergency c-section, and then my over-tired uterus began hemorrhaging while I had to be put completely under for the surgery, and things got very worrisome at that point, as you might imagine.

There are too many things that can go wrong during labor and delivery, regardless of how qualified one's midwife might be, or how many successful births they have already helped with. If I were not in the hospital, neither I nor my child would have made it.

[Wild Wild West]

Birthing at home is fine as long as a trained midwife is there to assist. With the process comes the natural risks, of something going wrong. Don't blame the midwife for your emergency, just be prepared to go to the hospital if necessary, or willing to face the possibility of severe injury or death. Remember you are the person who chose the birth location and accept what goes along with it.

Birthing is a wonderful natural process.

[Big Johnson]

PotStirrer wrote:

Wow. some of these headlines are really pushing it.

I'm sure the article dilates the subject.

[Oh Really]

PotStirrer wrote:

Wow. some of these headlines are really pushing it.

yeah real clever, about as funny as the anthony weiner headlines we had to put up with.

My favorite headline of all times is from sports, like back in the day before Tiger Woods sucked and won like 465 golf tournaments in a row, the next morning after a Tiger victory, the sportsline would read...."Tiger tames the field at Muirfield"....epic lame

[Real Patriot]

Mathew wrote:

To me, this would be like electing to have heart surgery at home. It's a no-brainer. Do it at the hospital--they have the medical resources THERE to handle life-threatening complications to both the mother and the baby. This isn't the 1800's.

You are wrong on the analogy but right that this isn't the 1800s. Home birth is a excellent option to help prevent the over intervention and abuses to women and their babies that happen at most all hospitals these days. The patriarchal maternal care model used by hospitals must stop and we need to return to the women focused model of care that a Certified Professional Midwife or a Certified Nurse Midwives will give you.

[Dumb Article]

"Home births increased 20 percent from 2004 to 2008, accounting for 28,357 of 4.2 million U.S. births, according to a study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released in May."

That still is less than one percent of the births. Clearly not many women are pushing to have babies at home like the headline is saying. Another misleading article by the dispatch

[Man of the House]

It's always about what a WOMAN wants: her right to have a baby, her right to take off tons of time when she has kids and still have her job waiting for her, how big her engagement and wedding rings are, how big her wedding is, etc. Now these things (oops, I mean women) want to have babies at home? Get out of town.

[Old Mans Cave]

Obama care is working already.

[George Jefferson]

Real Patriot wrote:

<quoted text>
You are wrong on the analogy but right that this isn't the 1800s. Home birth is a excellent option to help prevent the over intervention and abuses to women and their babies that happen at most all hospitals these days. The patriarchal maternal care model used by hospitals must stop and we need to return to the women focused model of care that a Certified Professional Midwife or a Certified Nurse Midwives will give you.

Man haters show up on the strangest topics. Misandry is an ugly thing. Practiced by ugly people.

[McGillicuddy]

Home Birth wrote:

We had a very comfortable home birth. The mother has to be comfortable with their body and the process. Doctors don't teach women anything about birth and make lots of money with drugs and ceasarian proceedures. Our midwife was informative, knowledgeable and experienced.

And you had a "comfortable" birth because there were no complications. Too many things CAN go wrong, and often do. I wouldn't push my luck. Even if you get a grumpy doctor, he or she will save your baby's life or your life or both.

Hospital births are why the infant mortality rate is so low in this country. If you were required to give birth at home you would likely protest that you're being made to take a giant step backwards.

[Jordan s Mom 2010]

Home delivery is dangerous. You do not know what is going to happen, and things can change very quickly when you are in labor.
I was in labor for 30 hours--very painful. I had three epidurals and any kind of pain medication they could safely give me. I also tore during delivery--4th degree. My son swallowed mocium and almost aspirated it. Forceps were used, and he was all bruised.
The worst thing was that I wanted him to have a peaceful entry into the world, and it was hell for him. Had I been at home, it would had been much worse.
Hire a doula and have the baby in the hospital.

[Common Sense Man]

Always some non-showering hippy wants to give birth in field somewhere......

Let's take all the advatages of modern medicine and not use them, just stupid.

[Sad]

Man of the House wrote:

It's always about what a WOMAN wants: her right to have a baby, her right to take off tons of time when she has kids and still have her job waiting for her, how big her engagement and wedding rings are, how big her wedding is, etc. Now these things (oops, I mean women) want to have babies at home? Get out of town.

Are you for real or just a troll? So what if a woman wants to give birth at home? I personally wouldn't want to, but I respect others' rights to do so. And since when is 6 weeks off of work, often unpaid, "a ton of time?" Many other superpowers give anywhere from 3 months to 2 years (yes, 2 years) of PAID time off! And the women you think are obsessed with the size of their rings and weddings are few and far between, not that this argument is even relevant to the discussion. You're an idiot.

[George Jefferson]

Sad wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you for real or just a troll? So what if a woman wants to give birth at home? I personally wouldn't want to, but I respect others' rights to do so. And since when is 6 weeks off of work, often unpaid, "a ton of time?" Many other superpowers give anywhere from 3 months to 2 years (yes, 2 years) of PAID time off! And the women you think are obsessed with the size of their rings and weddings are few and far between, not that this argument is even relevant to the discussion. You're an idiot.

Sweden is far from a "superpower." There has only been one for the past 20 years...The United States. That seems be ending under the current regime, however.