My wife and I recently found out that she is pregnant(!) and we are exploring our birthing options. She has been reading a lot about delivering at home with a midwife rather than in a hospital. Does anyone have any personal experience with this, or an opinion? I'm fine with whatever she chooses to do (she's the one doing the work after all ) but want to learn more about the different options available.
Home Birth?
- Thread starter Theo18
- Start date
i know several chinese ladies who choose the home birth thing. they say its more natural and the baby has less chance of medicine/chemicals doing unknown side effects to the baby. which i think is maybe the main reason. i hear the pain is more intense. they also say its more risky IF something happened but their kids are fine. healthy.
Wow. I have been studying homebirth in an informal setting for 6 years now. I am pregnant about to have my third baby. I can tell you a LOT about pregnancy labour and birth and why it is best done at home. I will come back to this thread and post a more thorough response but right now I'm cooking dinner. All the best to you and your wife, congratulations!!
Okay don't want to swamp you with info, and there's a real risk I will, so I will try to give you my equivalent of the 10 second version, and please I encourage you ask any questions you might have.
Hospitals are great if you need medical help. They have the medical stuff.
Birth is actually not a medical event (despite what pretty much everyone you mention homebirth to will tell you).
God designed the female body to birth beautifully and nothing since then including Genesis 3:16 has changed that. In fact many women can do it drug free and pain free with a little unlearning and learning, which supports the correct exegesis of Genesis 3:16 (estev = sorrow / toil, not necessarily pain).
My story is that I spent two pregnancies trusting medical people (and midwives are not excluded from that term) to bring my babies forth safely into the world.
Why I was not trusting God I have no excuse for.
I have two wonderfully healthy boys. Both were delivered via caesarean section. I was 3.3 times more likely to die from caesarean than natural birth, 3.6 times more likely to have a major complication (cardiac arrest, hysterectomy, major infection). My babies were more likely to be injured. Some people say "only an awful obstetrician would cut a baby with the scalpel in a caesarean". But only a truly wonderous obstetrician could cut a baby with a scalpel during a natural physiological birth he was not even present at. :wink:
The World Health Organisation has said that necessary caesarean rates should fall at around 7% and no country can justify a caesar rate higher than 10%-15%. At the moment 30% of babies are born via caesarean. It is clear that at the very least half of these women have had their lives put at risk for no gain. I tell you all this hospital related information when you were asking about homebirth because I planned two homebirths with my two sons and it was through lack of information that I ended up with two scars on my uterus.
The best thing that will help you in any birthing situation whether hospital, home or side of the road will be information and support. It is absolutely imperative that you do not put your faith in medical people. Work with them? Yes, if you need it. Trust them? Sure if they show themselves to be trustworthy.
Hospitals are constrained by three things: time, money and capability. God is constrained by NOTHING! Please put all your faith in God for this birth, trust that he has planned a good way for women to give birth, by all means learn about the plan he has in place, and for the love of God don't mess with his plan.
Much love to you both.
Homebirth has been show to be as safe as, if not safer than birthing in a hospital... one has to wonder why that is...
Hospitals are great if you need medical help. They have the medical stuff.
Birth is actually not a medical event (despite what pretty much everyone you mention homebirth to will tell you).
God designed the female body to birth beautifully and nothing since then including Genesis 3:16 has changed that. In fact many women can do it drug free and pain free with a little unlearning and learning, which supports the correct exegesis of Genesis 3:16 (estev = sorrow / toil, not necessarily pain).
My story is that I spent two pregnancies trusting medical people (and midwives are not excluded from that term) to bring my babies forth safely into the world.
Why I was not trusting God I have no excuse for.
I have two wonderfully healthy boys. Both were delivered via caesarean section. I was 3.3 times more likely to die from caesarean than natural birth, 3.6 times more likely to have a major complication (cardiac arrest, hysterectomy, major infection). My babies were more likely to be injured. Some people say "only an awful obstetrician would cut a baby with the scalpel in a caesarean". But only a truly wonderous obstetrician could cut a baby with a scalpel during a natural physiological birth he was not even present at. :wink:
The World Health Organisation has said that necessary caesarean rates should fall at around 7% and no country can justify a caesar rate higher than 10%-15%. At the moment 30% of babies are born via caesarean. It is clear that at the very least half of these women have had their lives put at risk for no gain. I tell you all this hospital related information when you were asking about homebirth because I planned two homebirths with my two sons and it was through lack of information that I ended up with two scars on my uterus.
The best thing that will help you in any birthing situation whether hospital, home or side of the road will be information and support. It is absolutely imperative that you do not put your faith in medical people. Work with them? Yes, if you need it. Trust them? Sure if they show themselves to be trustworthy.
Hospitals are constrained by three things: time, money and capability. God is constrained by NOTHING! Please put all your faith in God for this birth, trust that he has planned a good way for women to give birth, by all means learn about the plan he has in place, and for the love of God don't mess with his plan.
Much love to you both.
Homebirth has been show to be as safe as, if not safer than birthing in a hospital... one has to wonder why that is...
Last edited:
I really encourage you to learn as much as you can about normal in birth, cause that is the first thing that will undermine your confidence.
I propose the following things are well within the range of normal while some medical people will try to convince you otherwise. This is where your research would come into play
- baby not head down in labour
- pregnant at 42 weeks, or 43 weeks, or 44 weeks etc
- big baby
- little baby
- waters breaking days or weeks before labour
- labour lasting for days
The only reason I say this is that I see the same kind of phrases in what you're saying and what I said with my first baby. We need to be the gatekeepers in some sense to what influences and mindsets we place on our pregnancies (whether male or female). If you go into birth thinking "we will stay at home if all goes well" and you don't know reliably what "well" and "normal" and "okay" ARE... well you're in the same rocky boat I was in. And when I was pregnant at 42 weeks with my first son and my homebirth midwife and the hopsital were all encouraging me to get it out, I wasn't listening to God who was telling me to put my faith fully in him, and I wasn't listening to the baby, whose heartbeat was fine, I was just listening to fear and ignorance and I risked my baby's life and mine with a caesar.
Please, keep turning all these things over in your mind, and bringing them before God prayerfully. He will show to you the truth if you seek him.
Last edited:
goccarroll711
Member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2012
- Messages
- 13
I just gave birth to our fourth child, and it was a home birth. My first was a "very medical" hospital birth, and it was a horrific experience. My second was better, but still a hospital birth with negative experiences. They almost accidentally circumcised my son! My third and fourth were mid-wife attended births, and they were wonderful experiences. I think the main problem is that the medical community treats pregnancy like a disease, instead of a normal process of life.
lawrenceb
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2012
- Messages
- 306
from the wife of lawrenceb:
I have discovered that giving birth was not the medical emergency I had been conditioned to believe.
Once I became pregnant, I knew for sure I would not give birth in a hospital. But what about prenatal care? I decided to avoid this too, since much of it is rooted in fear. Both Richard and I knew that if there was "something wrong" with the baby, we would not be aborting. Also, I had read numerous accounts of women who were told that there was "something wrong," only to find at the birth there was nothing wrong and they spent their entire pregnancy worried about nothing.
Not that I was irresponsible. We endeavor to live healthy anyway. I ate what I craved, taking my cravings as an indication of what my body needed, which was amazing because I am a sweet tooth. But I could not tolerate those same sweet things while I was pregnant. I rested when I need to rest and exercised when I needed to, etc.
The third in a series of events occured while reading a book called "Born in Zion" by Carol Balizet. This is a controversial book and many people have questioned her theology. For me, it encouraged my faith in God and the importance of my husband's spiritual authority. Like any book, it must be read through the sieve of God's Word. It also helped me in deciding whether to have a midwife at the birth. I am not opposed to midwives, as it is a noble profession which I myself had considered training for, after I began to learn what a wonderful event childbirth is. But in my case, I felt having a medical professional at the birth would detract from my husband's spiritual authority. As God would allow, my friend Emma-Jayne was at the birth (who, incidently, has since gone on to train as a midwife), and it worked out wonderfully. She did not come armed with medical knowledge or a desire to usurp my husband's authority. In fact, God told her specifically not to "study up" but to Trust Him. She proved to be a wonderful support to my husband and me; in fact, she freed up my husband to support me even better.
Although I did much research, I was not motivated by faith but by fear. I found out in the end that I didn't need the knowledge -- not because I'm still alive and well now after the birth, but because I saw how God moved and directed us in the birth, and how some of what I initially feared (e.g. an undelivered placenta) came back to haunt me afterwards. I regret trying to "hedge my bets" and have since repented of trusting in my own understanding.
Those are some of the things that contributed to our decision to go God-assisted. Now I will cover three of the FAQ's we've received regarding our desire to go God-assisted:
1. But don't hospital save people's lives?
Well, there are extreme cases (e.g. trauma-based), yet my belief is that most "emergencies" are actually *caused* by medical intervention. To illustrate this, I will use myself as an example of how Abigail's birth could have proceeded if I'd gone to a hospital or been seen by a doctor. Incidentally, statistically the safest countries to give birth in have fewer medical interventions. The births are mainly attended by midwives. The United States is #40 on the list and New Zealand is #36.
a. I would have been induced because medically I was considered overdue.
b. The drugs used could have been cyotec (which is for stomach ulcers and should not be used in labour, it leads to fetal distress at the least, but is also known to cause uterine rupture) or pitocin, or they could break my bag of waters.
c. The drugs mentioned above cause hard painful contractions and, in the case of the bag of waters being broken, can lead to the placenta coming before the baby.
d. The hard painful contractions are worse than what you would experience naturally, so you are more likely to ask for pain relief. The drugs you take are then passed on to the baby.
e. In the case of an epidural, it stalls your labour and you lose the feeling to push, which can lead to the use of foreceps or episiotomy or, in an extreme case, leads to a c-section. If the baby is delivered vaginally, they are usually drowsy and have trouble breathing.
f. A drowsy baby delays breastfeeding, which leads to a delay in mother-baby bonding. It is good for the baby to breastfeed straight away, as it helps the mother's uterus contract and release the placenta.
g. Delayed breastfeeding can lead to many things, such as engorgement, breast infection, increased baby blues, etc.
2. But what about the risks?
This question comes from the premise that childbirth is not safe, which I disagree with. However, I did some research on the "top three risks." Here is what I found for each of them:
a. What if the cord is wrapped around the baby's neck?
I found the cord to be quite long actually, so it's possible that you can just unwrap it after the baby's birth. Or you can cut it prematurely if you reach in and find the cord wrapped around; or you can push gently against the baby's head, creating slack in the cord, and unwrap it.
b. What if the shoulders get stuck?
One of the great advantages in a natural birth is you are not confined to a bed on your back, which is the worst possible position to be in when attempting to give birth, as it works against gravity. In the case of the shoulders being stuck, you want to be in a squatting position. Moving into that position allows more room for the baby to come out.
c. What about breech?
First, I would pray, but most breech babies can be delievered naturally. It takes patience and minimal interference. Basically, you get in the standing or squating position and let your body do the work.
Despite even these natural interventions, I believe we have something far greater in the power of prayer in Jesus Christ who hears our prayers and who is the Great Physician.
3. Do we hate hospitals; can't God use them as agents of healing?
Actually, I have a strong dislike for hospitals (though I haven't had any bad experiences). But in some catastrophic cases (liking having a limb cut off, etc.), the medical community can be helpful. The more I learn about the medical community, though, it seems they are more about wealth than true health, and I hesitate even now to recommend it as a last resort.
As a Christian, I believe in first turning to the Lord. In the book of James, it talks about approaching the elders when we are sick, being anointed with oil, and having them pray for us:
Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. (James 5:14,15)
I believe Christians need to examine their own lives to see if the sickness is related to:
- sin in their own lives
- a test from God
- attack from the enemy
- living in a fallen world
- stress
- diet or enviroment (for example, I used to get nagging headaches every day, but when I stopped drinking coffee, they stopped).
Like I said previously, in a catastrophic situation, the medical community may be of some help. But I see it as more about drugs and their interactions rather than about promoting true healing.
In fact, the Greek word in the bible for the English word "sorcery" is pharmakeia from which the words "pharmacy" and "pharmaceutical" are derived. The companies that manufacture the drug$ to "help" us are also the companies that manufacture the drugs that "harm" us.
Giving birth is not a medical emergency. Also, it is safer to give birth at home where we are immune, rather than giving birth in the company of ill patients. The few times I've been in hospitals I've gotten sick afterwards because it's a place full of germs. So I don't think it's the safest place for a newborn baby whose immune system can be weak.
The final thought in avoiding hospitals involves the spiritual principle of the "transference of spirits" by the laying on of hands. There is no way I'd let someone touch me or the baby if that person had also been performing abortions. I really don't want that spirit about me when I'm trying to bring new life into the world.
If you made it this far, thanks for sticking with me. Hopefully, this has answered some of your questions about why we chose to birth the way we did. Thank you also for your patience -- I know I've been promising this story for awhile.
(You can read "The birth of Abigail, lawrenceb's first child" in the Testimonies forum.)
I have discovered that giving birth was not the medical emergency I had been conditioned to believe.
Once I became pregnant, I knew for sure I would not give birth in a hospital. But what about prenatal care? I decided to avoid this too, since much of it is rooted in fear. Both Richard and I knew that if there was "something wrong" with the baby, we would not be aborting. Also, I had read numerous accounts of women who were told that there was "something wrong," only to find at the birth there was nothing wrong and they spent their entire pregnancy worried about nothing.
Not that I was irresponsible. We endeavor to live healthy anyway. I ate what I craved, taking my cravings as an indication of what my body needed, which was amazing because I am a sweet tooth. But I could not tolerate those same sweet things while I was pregnant. I rested when I need to rest and exercised when I needed to, etc.
The third in a series of events occured while reading a book called "Born in Zion" by Carol Balizet. This is a controversial book and many people have questioned her theology. For me, it encouraged my faith in God and the importance of my husband's spiritual authority. Like any book, it must be read through the sieve of God's Word. It also helped me in deciding whether to have a midwife at the birth. I am not opposed to midwives, as it is a noble profession which I myself had considered training for, after I began to learn what a wonderful event childbirth is. But in my case, I felt having a medical professional at the birth would detract from my husband's spiritual authority. As God would allow, my friend Emma-Jayne was at the birth (who, incidently, has since gone on to train as a midwife), and it worked out wonderfully. She did not come armed with medical knowledge or a desire to usurp my husband's authority. In fact, God told her specifically not to "study up" but to Trust Him. She proved to be a wonderful support to my husband and me; in fact, she freed up my husband to support me even better.
Although I did much research, I was not motivated by faith but by fear. I found out in the end that I didn't need the knowledge -- not because I'm still alive and well now after the birth, but because I saw how God moved and directed us in the birth, and how some of what I initially feared (e.g. an undelivered placenta) came back to haunt me afterwards. I regret trying to "hedge my bets" and have since repented of trusting in my own understanding.
Those are some of the things that contributed to our decision to go God-assisted. Now I will cover three of the FAQ's we've received regarding our desire to go God-assisted:
1. But don't hospital save people's lives?
Well, there are extreme cases (e.g. trauma-based), yet my belief is that most "emergencies" are actually *caused* by medical intervention. To illustrate this, I will use myself as an example of how Abigail's birth could have proceeded if I'd gone to a hospital or been seen by a doctor. Incidentally, statistically the safest countries to give birth in have fewer medical interventions. The births are mainly attended by midwives. The United States is #40 on the list and New Zealand is #36.
a. I would have been induced because medically I was considered overdue.
b. The drugs used could have been cyotec (which is for stomach ulcers and should not be used in labour, it leads to fetal distress at the least, but is also known to cause uterine rupture) or pitocin, or they could break my bag of waters.
c. The drugs mentioned above cause hard painful contractions and, in the case of the bag of waters being broken, can lead to the placenta coming before the baby.
d. The hard painful contractions are worse than what you would experience naturally, so you are more likely to ask for pain relief. The drugs you take are then passed on to the baby.
e. In the case of an epidural, it stalls your labour and you lose the feeling to push, which can lead to the use of foreceps or episiotomy or, in an extreme case, leads to a c-section. If the baby is delivered vaginally, they are usually drowsy and have trouble breathing.
f. A drowsy baby delays breastfeeding, which leads to a delay in mother-baby bonding. It is good for the baby to breastfeed straight away, as it helps the mother's uterus contract and release the placenta.
g. Delayed breastfeeding can lead to many things, such as engorgement, breast infection, increased baby blues, etc.
2. But what about the risks?
This question comes from the premise that childbirth is not safe, which I disagree with. However, I did some research on the "top three risks." Here is what I found for each of them:
a. What if the cord is wrapped around the baby's neck?
I found the cord to be quite long actually, so it's possible that you can just unwrap it after the baby's birth. Or you can cut it prematurely if you reach in and find the cord wrapped around; or you can push gently against the baby's head, creating slack in the cord, and unwrap it.
b. What if the shoulders get stuck?
One of the great advantages in a natural birth is you are not confined to a bed on your back, which is the worst possible position to be in when attempting to give birth, as it works against gravity. In the case of the shoulders being stuck, you want to be in a squatting position. Moving into that position allows more room for the baby to come out.
c. What about breech?
First, I would pray, but most breech babies can be delievered naturally. It takes patience and minimal interference. Basically, you get in the standing or squating position and let your body do the work.
Despite even these natural interventions, I believe we have something far greater in the power of prayer in Jesus Christ who hears our prayers and who is the Great Physician.
3. Do we hate hospitals; can't God use them as agents of healing?
Actually, I have a strong dislike for hospitals (though I haven't had any bad experiences). But in some catastrophic cases (liking having a limb cut off, etc.), the medical community can be helpful. The more I learn about the medical community, though, it seems they are more about wealth than true health, and I hesitate even now to recommend it as a last resort.
As a Christian, I believe in first turning to the Lord. In the book of James, it talks about approaching the elders when we are sick, being anointed with oil, and having them pray for us:
Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. (James 5:14,15)
I believe Christians need to examine their own lives to see if the sickness is related to:
- sin in their own lives
- a test from God
- attack from the enemy
- living in a fallen world
- stress
- diet or enviroment (for example, I used to get nagging headaches every day, but when I stopped drinking coffee, they stopped).
Like I said previously, in a catastrophic situation, the medical community may be of some help. But I see it as more about drugs and their interactions rather than about promoting true healing.
In fact, the Greek word in the bible for the English word "sorcery" is pharmakeia from which the words "pharmacy" and "pharmaceutical" are derived. The companies that manufacture the drug$ to "help" us are also the companies that manufacture the drugs that "harm" us.
Giving birth is not a medical emergency. Also, it is safer to give birth at home where we are immune, rather than giving birth in the company of ill patients. The few times I've been in hospitals I've gotten sick afterwards because it's a place full of germs. So I don't think it's the safest place for a newborn baby whose immune system can be weak.
The final thought in avoiding hospitals involves the spiritual principle of the "transference of spirits" by the laying on of hands. There is no way I'd let someone touch me or the baby if that person had also been performing abortions. I really don't want that spirit about me when I'm trying to bring new life into the world.
If you made it this far, thanks for sticking with me. Hopefully, this has answered some of your questions about why we chose to birth the way we did. Thank you also for your patience -- I know I've been promising this story for awhile.
(You can read "The birth of Abigail, lawrenceb's first child" in the Testimonies forum.)
Last edited:
