Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on November 25, 2018, 09:33:45 PM
-
God specifically cursed women with pain and sorrow during childbirth (Genesis 3:16). Therefore, any use of drugs or similar things to reduce this pain and sorrow is an attempt to circuмvent God’s curse, and is immoral.
MODERATOR:
Peter15and1 posted this "pearl of wisdom" anonymously. So he knew it was crap when he posted it.
Oh, and by the way it's spelled "Medicine". That's not exactly a hard word to spell.
-
God also cursed man to toil the earth; therefore tractors are immoral.
.
The argument is stupid. Pain meds in labor don't make labor less traumatic, and using a tractor doesn't mean you've "cheated" your punishment. It's still damned hard in both cases.
-
God also cursed man to toil the earth; therefore tractors are immoral.
.
The argument is stupid. Pain meds in labor don't make labor less traumatic, and using a tractor doesn't mean you've "cheated" your punishment. It's still damned hard in both cases.
I second your post. If a person knew the time, maintenance and money that goes into tractors that farmers use and you were the farmer, you would not necessarily think it made your life easier. It brings it's own set of problems.
Same goes for women in labor. One should consider that the meds dont work for everyone and There is still the pain from after the birth, exhaustion, mental effects, possible hormonal imbalance, etc. Pain meds sont do anything for that. Secondly, what about Charity? A charitable thing to do is "comfort the afflicted" and "comfort the sorrowful" . One has a certain amount of duty to relieve pain if it is reasonably possible.
If ignoring the Corporal Works of Mercy is a moral thing to do, then by all means, dont take anything for your migrain. Sick? Dont go to the doctor, of any kind. Since pain is a consequence of sin - a curse, you may as well not eat when you are hungry because it would be a sin to relieve your aching belly. But then we have the problem of not eating being ѕυιcιdє which is also a sin... you see the problem?
:facepalm:
-
It's an argument that reeks of sola scriptura and Protestant theology, along with the practice of quoting Scripture to appear as if you're making a point.
Even though this is a Catholic forum.
OP, why are you wasting our time with Protestant arguments? I live in Minnesota where there is a Lutheran church on every corner -- if I wanted to hear bad theology and parroting of Scripture, I'd go outside.
-
Good explanations so far about why the OP is not a Catholic approach to Scripture.
Although there are not good theological grounds to refrain from pain medication in childbirth, there are medical arguments to be cautious with these drugs. There are often possible side effects harmful to the baby or to establishing breastfeeding. Personally I avoided pain meds for this reason. Even so, one of the births involved a situation in which an epidural anaesthetic was advisable.
-
Not using pain meds during child birth would be an impressive act of self-mortification, but such acts cannot be forced unless by sacred vows taken by members of Holy Orders, and no Holy Order forces this. (Sorry, double post, wasn't logged in)
-
As has been said, there are actually good reasons to avoid pain medications if possible. Certainly if a woman wishes to self mortify through a natural birth that is noble. Even aside from that there are health-related for both baby and mother. Some pain medications tend to impede the natural hormonal catharsis which accompanies child birth and which promotes strong bonding behavior. Not to mention the sort of disorientation they can cause for both mother and child. At the same time, there are easily conceived situations where such pain medication would be the safer and healthier route, such as if a mother has an extremely long labor and is not able to continue on her own strength.
-
God specifically cursed women with pain and sorrow during childbirth (Genesis 3:16). Therefore, any use of drugs or similar things to reduce this pain and sorrow is an attempt to circuмvent God’s curse, and is immoral.
:facepalm:
Death is also a punishment for sin. By your logic, any medical intervention at all would be immoral, since it is an attempt to circuмvent God's curse.
-
Not using pain meds during child birth would be an impressive act of self-mortification,
Not necessarily. A woman always has pain in childbirth, but it is not always self-mortification to decline. I did not have pain relief in any of my three labours, which all were reasonably quick and bearable. I never considered asking for pain relief. There are other ways of relieving pain than drugs too. I was obviously more fortunate than most
That doesn't mean I agree with the OP.
-
O yes, I remember that book: Pain Medicine During Child Birth is Immoral, by Hugo First
-
I’d get my epidural again every time. Pregnancy, and afterbirth healing are still punishment enough. When I was pregnant I had hyperemesis gravidarium it only gets worse with each pregnancy. The constant vomiting, and worry were enough to deal with....
-
I’d get my epidural again every time. Pregnancy, and afterbirth healing are still punishment enough. When I was pregnant I had hyperemesis gravidarium it only gets worse with each pregnancy. The constant vomiting, and worry were enough to deal with....
My experience was quite different. I had seven babies and the trend was that most aspects of pregnancy and birth became easier each time. The morning sickness was much worst with the first. The main thing that became more difficult was that I was more tired during my last few pregnancies because I was getting on in age. But the actual labours were relatively short and easy.
While there were certainly discomforts involved in having babies, they were overshadowed by the joy of bringing a child into the world. I did not feel like I was being punished.
Anyhow, I think there is a lot of variation among individual women, so I don't think we can generalize too much.
-
God specifically cursed women with pain and sorrow during childbirth (Genesis 3:16). Therefore, any use of drugs or similar things to reduce this pain and sorrow is an attempt to circuмvent God’s curse, and is immoral.
And the Church teaching that specifically prohibits women from using such drugs is ....?
-
And the Church teaching that specifically prohibits women from using such drugs is ....?
Sorry, that ^ was me .....
-
God specifically cursed women with pain and sorrow during childbirth (Genesis 3:16). Therefore, any use of drugs or similar things to reduce this pain and sorrow is an attempt to circuмvent God’s curse, and is immoral.
Okay. So it's also immoral for men to work in air conditioned offices since man is cursed to earn his living by the sweat of his brow.
-
Okay. So it's also immoral for men to work in air conditioned offices since man is cursed to earn his living by the sweat of his brow.
.
Don't forget deodorant. Sticks of Satan.
-
Okay. So it's also immoral for men to work in air conditioned offices since man is cursed to earn his living by the sweat of his brow.
Ha ha. Great point!
-
And the Church teaching that specifically prohibits women from using such drugs is ....?
It's the Independent Fundamental Baptist Church teaching...
This is the Reformation-era heavily warped interpretation of Scripture.
It's an argument I've actually heard before, but only with the whack fundie Baptists. Like, the ones who appoint any Tom or Joe who can yell and quote Scripture to be a pastor because seminaries are "unbiblical".
-
What BS!!! God gave man the intelligence to create pain meds to ease suffering. Like it or not, epidurals are here to stay. This aint Little House on the Prairie! The woman He wanted to deliver babies without analgesics were born in 1856. This is 2018....get with the times.
The logic that rallies against modern science and mechanical advancements is crazy!
Throw away your power tools, your motor vehicles, your diabetes and hypertension meds while your at it to!
You nutter!
-
Don't forget deodorant. Sticks of Satan.
There might be some truth to this. :)
-
Pain meds only made things worse for my wife, so she stopped using them after our first couple, and her deliveries went much better without them. First time, the meds only took effect on one side of her body. Second time, they gave her too much so that she could not feel her body in order to push properly (prolonged the labor significantly). So she stopped using them. I have to say that my wife had some of the most incredibly beautiful and dignified labors, despite the pain.
-
Then so is anesthesia for a bowel resection or bypass surgery! Pain and sickness are due to Original Sin. Suck it up, Tradcats!
-
While the OP's assertion is ridiculous, let's not equate labor pains with the need for surgical anesthesia. Many first-time mothers approach labor with the attitude that the pain involved is always more than an average person can handle and request medical interventions before their labor has even begun.
We should be aware of some of the motivations of those who encourage this mindset. When I worked at a hospital, there was a bit of a controversy because the L&D nurses were encouraging women to wait until they actually experienced pain that they wanted relief for before requesting an epidural rather than out of fear of what was to come. Of course, this resulted in many women discovering that labor pains are in many cases more like a high degree of discomfort rather than an unbearable pain. When the company providing anesthesia services found out about this practice among the nurses, they complained and the nurses were no longer allowed to make any recommendations to the laboring mothers.
I'm generally not in favor of labor interventions mostly because the question of what is causing the huge increases in things like autism and allergies has not been solved. I once was interviewed by a grad student looking to do a study on a possible link between labor interventions and autism -- her study was specifically regarding either Pitocin or epidurals, I don't recall which -- but she was having a very difficult time finding people who had not used the drug in question during labor.
Nonetheless, there are many times when pain alleviation is advisable and there is absolutely no religious reason not to take advantage of this medical aid whenever the need arises.
- MaterD
-
When I had my first child, I had an epidural because that's what the Dr. said I should do. I knew nothing about labor and delivery. I ended up laying flat in the bed, which makes it harder on the delivery itself. My husband had to beg the Dr. not to use forceps. I could feel nothing at all. Terrible experience. With my second child, I was really overdue but requested no epidural. Once they induced me, the labor was pretty quick and I had only mild discomfort. I had the rest of my children without pain meds except for one, where the Dr. gave me the epidural anyway (long story.) Mostly, I waited home until I knew delivery was approaching. I could move around as I pleased and find whatever position was comfortable. I actually delivered one child while squatting. First time mom's don't know what to expect, so sometimes they have unreasonable fears. It helps to encourage them to wait until they are really in pain before going into the Dr. I would never suggest to people that pain medication is immoral. That is silliest thing I've heard. It is, however, not always necessary and some meds are bad for the baby. I had very short labors compared to some. My longest labor was 9 hours with my first. I had my 5th child in 30 minutes from onset of pain to delivery. I delivered my last in 1 hour. But some women have really long labors and pain meds would probably ease the tension.
-
When the company providing anesthesia services found out about this practice among the nurses, they complained and the nurses were no longer allowed to make any recommendations to the laboring mothers.
Even when my wife used NO pain medications at all, the hospital charged the insurance company for full anaesthesia services (as if she had received an epidural). She hadn't taken so much as an ibuprofen.
-
Throw away your power tools, your motor vehicles, your diabetes and hypertension meds while your at it to!
Exercise and sugar, and abstaining from fats and oils, cures diabetes and hypertension. People should throw away their diabetes/HT meds, and get up off their fat asses and move... but people are too lazy and addicted to dead flesh and fats. They choose gluttony and laziness over real health and virility. They choose a pill over action.
-
Exercise and sugar, and abstaining from fats and oils, cures diabetes and hypertension. People should throw away their diabetes/HT meds, and get up off their fat asses and move... but people are too lazy and addicted to dead flesh and fats. They choose gluttony and laziness over real health and virility. They choose a pill over action.
Look at how "men", now, post pics of their dishes of meats and fats all over social media, just like women do it. What an effeminate thing to do...
-
Who are these anonymous males who have nothing better to do than to attack women for wearing makeup, and for using pain-lessening medication? Does that make them feel superior? They are sinning against humility and offending God.
-
Who are these anonymous males who have nothing better to do than to attack women for wearing makeup, and for using pain-lessening medication? Does that make them feel superior? They are sinning against humility and offending God.
They’ve probably been burned by a woman somewhere in life or just can’t find a wife and are lonely.
I am sad for them they don’t know the love of God is in Charity for our neighbors, it’s not in crackin’ folks over the head with their interpretations of God’s laws like a Pharisee.
-
Sorry to take a controversial view but as a woman and as a mother I do believe mothers and babies are entitled to a safe and healthy delivery, with the benefits of modern medicine.
But I also believe that that pain relief which has no other purpose but the comfort of the mother is not only sinful but also unhelpful to the process.
-
Peter15and1 posted this "pearl of wisdom" anonymously. So he knew it was crap when he posted it.
Since he posted anonymously, you can't downvote his posts. That's ok, here is a nice convenient link to all his past posts, so you can scroll through them and give him some downvotes. Come on, everyone give him at least ONE.
https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/?area=showposts;u=4565
I told you guys, abuse of the Anonymous subforum will NOT be tolerated. When you violate the rules of the Anonymous subforum, your identity can and will be exposed at my discretion. Serious and repeat offenders can and will be banned.
This is a good example of abuse of the Anonymous subforum.
Might I remind you again: It is not for shielding yourself from the fallout (read: downvotes) of your extreme, ridiculous opinions. It is for safeguarding privacy of whistleblowers, first-hand reporters, and members posting sensitive questions.
-
And I don't mean to pick on Peter15and1. He is by no means alone. This is just the first post that caught my eye for now. I might have time to take care of other offenders later.
Any and all others who do the same thing will be NEXT! For those of you who routinely abuse the Anonymous subforum, consider yourself warned! The party is over.
Matthew
-
The OP in this case is merely abusing the Anonymous subforum. Aside from shielding himself from unpopular or ridiculous opinions, he didn't violate any other rules.
But I've seen posts in Anonymous where the posters seem to have forgotten that ALL of CathInfo -- including the Anonymous subforum -- is subject to CathInfo's rules, and subject to moderation. It is not a free-for-all.
Matthew
-
And I don't mean to pick on Peter15and1. He is by no means alone. This is just the first post that caught my eye for now. I might have time to take care of other offenders later.
Any and all others who do the same thing will be NEXT! For those of you who routinely abuse the Anonymous subforum, consider yourself warned! The party is over.
Matthew
At last! Thank you, Matthew! :applause:
-
I wouldn't be surprised if Judith 15 Ten and Peter15and1 are the same poster ... various incarnations of Croix/Quid.
-
Sorry to take a controversial view but as a woman and as a mother I do believe mothers and babies are entitled to a safe and healthy delivery, with the benefits of modern medicine.
But I also believe that that pain relief which has no other purpose but the comfort of the mother is not only sinful but also unhelpful to the process.
Where does this recurring view come from that finds sin everywhere (except in themselves half the time)? Seeking pain relief in childbirth is not a sin. There's nothing illicit about pain relief. No Catholic theologian has ever taught that it's sinful to relieve the pain of childbirth through medication. Sure, you could argue that it would be the ideal to go without the relief, but falling short of perfection constitutes IMperfection and not necessarily positive sin.
-
What I’m getting from all these threads are “women are never getting to heaven because they are sinful harlots, and nothing they do is right.” Come on, guys. Jesus didn’t treat women like this....
-
I challenge the OP to be in a delivery room and tell an expectant Catholic mother his preachings.
Men do not ever belong in the delivery room!
-
Please video it and put it on YouTube :laugh2:
Women who record themselves giving birth, and then post it in YouTube are low - value attention-seeking freaks. It is a revolting offense against feminine modesty and all sense of propriety.
-
The proposed video is to be of the OP in a delivery room telling an expectant Catholic mother his preachings. Nothing about filming a birth.
-
I imagine St. Joseph was present at Jesus' birth. He doubt he left Mary alone with the Donkey and Ox while he nipped into the inn next door for a nightcap.
-
What I’m getting from all these threads are “women are never getting to heaven because they are sinful harlots, and nothing they do is right.” Come on, guys. Jesus didn’t treat women like this....
No he did not but feminisms teaches women to behave that way. Completely against God’s design for them.
-
Men do not ever belong in the delivery room!
No pain meds for the suffering mother!
No support from husband for distressed wife allowed in delivery room!
Come on people. We are not Puritans. This is getting ridiculous!
-
No pain meds for the suffering mother!
No support from husband for distressed wife allowed in delivery room!
Come on people. We are not Puritans. This is getting ridiculous!
The above post is mine.
-
Men do not ever belong in the delivery room!
My husband totally belonged there....
-
Men do not ever belong in the delivery room!
Why? Just curious.
I was there with my wife and wouldn't have missed it for the world.
-
No pain meds for the suffering mother!
No support from husband for distressed wife allowed in delivery room!
Come on people. We are not Puritans. This is getting ridiculous!
I agree; things are really getting weird here lately. Then you can throw in: corporal punishment for wives, makeup is always sinful, high heels are tantamount to prostitution. Sounds to me like a bunch of guys struggling with impurity and therefore lashing out against women.
-
No pain meds for the suffering mother!
No support from husband for distressed wife allowed in delivery room!
Come on people. We are not Puritans. This is getting ridiculous!
Oh! and NO MALE DOCTORS!
-
Oh! and NO MALE DOCTORS!
Definitely no men !
-
This is ridiculous that men can’t be in the room. Of course strange men shouldn’t, but husbands and make doctors have their place there 🙄🙄
-
Definitely no men !
Suzanne, Were you the anonymous previous poster who said men have no place in the delivery room?
Or are there two people here who think similarly?
Would you refuse the services of a male doctor (or midwife for that matter) if you or your baby were in severe distress and/or danger?
-
I can understand women not wanting male doctors, especially as an OBGYN, but the I'd like to know the reasoning behind the belief that a husband shouldn't be in the room. Why?
-
I can understand women not wanting male doctors, especially as an OBGYN, but the I'd like to know the reasoning behind the belief that a husband shouldn't be in the room. Why?
A woman with any sense of feminine "mystique" will get it instinctively. Unfortunately, modern women have lost all sense of decorum, modesty, and delicacy. Our great grandmothers knew much better! There is a reason why before the raise of Feminism, when the Patriarchal institution was firmly established in society, husbands would NEVER be permitted in the delivery room. They would wait OUTSIDE.
That is all I have to say about this. Not really interested in pursuing the conversation any longer, so I'll abandon this thread.
-
A woman with any sense of feminine "mystique" will get it instinctively. Unfortunately, modern women have lost all sense of decorum, modesty, and delicacy. Our great grandmothers knew much better! There is a reason why before the raise of Feminism, when the Patriarchal institution was firmly established in society, husbands would NEVER be permitted in the delivery room. They would wait OUTSIDE.
That is all I have to say about this. Not really interested in pursuing the conversation any longer, so I'll abandon this thread.
This is nonsense. A holdover of Victorian "morality", itself an offspring of puritanism.
I have assisted my wife at the births of all of our children. The "two in one flesh" applies here, too, even in the birthing room. The two of us support each other, assist each other, and experience one of the most amazing, beautiful, mysterious events in life. Together.
I asked this in another thread: Why does Traditional Catholicism seem to attract such puritanistic, Jansenistic, overly-scrupulous, and generally unbalanced people?
-
A woman with any sense of feminine "mystique" will get it instinctively. Unfortunately, modern women have lost all sense of decorum, modesty, and delicacy. Our great grandmothers knew much better! There is a reason why before the raise of Feminism, when the Patriarchal institution was firmly established in society, husbands would NEVER be permitted in the delivery room. They would wait OUTSIDE.
That is all I have to say about this. Not really interested in pursuing the conversation any longer, so I'll abandon this thread.
Btw, I just showed your post to my wife. She laughed hysterically. She said: "If the husband can help get the baby in there, he can sure as heck help get it out."
-
This is nonsense. A holdover of Victorian "morality", itself an offspring of puritanism.
I have assisted my wife at the births of all of our children. The "two in one flesh" applies here, too, even in the birthing room. The two of us support each other, assist each other, and experience one of the most amazing, beautiful, mysterious events in life. Together.
I asked this in another thread: Why does Traditional Catholicism seem to attract such puritanistic, Jansenistic, overly-scrupulous, and generally unbalanced people?
Catholic husbands also used to wait OUTSIDE the room in the patriarchal society. If the concept is quite foreign to you is just because of Feminism. Nothing else.
-
Btw, I just showed your post to my wife. She laughed hysterically. She said: "If the husband can help get the baby in there, he can sure as heck help get it out."
Yep, that is a typical response from the typical modern woman. Pretty average.
-
Yep, that is a typical response from the typical modern woman. Pretty average.
Including the hysterical laugh.
-
Catholic husbands also used to wait OUTSIDE the room in the patriarchal society. If the concept is quite foreign to you is just because of Feminism. Nothing else.
::)
Yes, the concept is quite foreign to me, since I'm Catholic, and not a Puritan.
I'm also a man, and I'd appreciate it, madam, if you'd stop trying to tell us men how to run our families.
-
Yep, that is a typical response from the typical modern woman. Pretty average.
::)
-
::)
Yes, the concept is quite foreign to me, since I'm Catholic, and not a Puritan.
I'm also a man, and I'd appreciate it, madam, if you'd stop trying to tell us men how to run our families.
That was me
-
When I was growing up in the fifties it was unheard of for a husband to go into the delivery room with his wife. Did that make it better for her?
I know that when my mother lost her daughter, stillborn, she was completely alone. They took MaryAnne away and my mother never saw her. It's best that way, was the wisdom then. My father was nowhere near to console her.
I remember my own devastation, because I was longing for a sister in a home with 5 brothers. At 10 years old I did not think then of what my mother's devastation might be.
I just cannot imagine giving birth without my husband being there to support me through the ordeal.
So should husbands be present for the birth of their child? If at all possible, YES.
-
My husband was at all my births other than one where they kicked him out due to an emergency situation. In hindsight, I would have preferred a midwife or doula throughout labour with my husband joining us immediately at the birth. Even though my husband and I did a childbirth preparation course, this could not replace a skilled coach.
It was hard for my husband to see me in discomfort and unable to do anything about it. He did not complain but I was aware of his distress and found it distracting. I would have preferred to focus on the birth process without worrying about him.
There is a lot of social pressure these days on husbands to attend birth. One encounters an attitude not being there means he is neglectful or unloving. I disagree with this pressure. Traditionally men did not attend and they don't really do anything that would not be done better by a trained female attendant. It is better to have a husband there than for a woman to be alone or with strangers, but I do not think it is the ideal.
-
When I was growing up in the fifties it was unheard of for a husband to go into the delivery room with his wife. Did that make it better for her?
The fifties model of birth was terrible for many reasons: overuse of drugs, lack of support for breastfeeding, neglect of emotional aspects of birth, etc. To a large extent, the idea of husbands attending birth was a reaction to these problems.
While introducing husbands was an improvement, the underlying problem is treating childbirth as a medical condition that requires hospitalization.
-
St. Joseph was there with Mary. I'll take that as a sign of God's approval.
Since Mary visited Elizabeth 6 months before to support her, it would certainly have been possible for God to arrange a doula or midwife, (Elizabeth returning the favour why not? Since God did not and left St. Joseph to clean up, then I will assume he is OK with husbands being present.
St. Elizabeth was looking after her own 6 month old baby in another town. Our Lady and St Joseph were alone away from home.
I am not sure how much their example applies to us, since this was traditionally believed not to be a normal birth. I don't think it is a matter of doctrine but Catholics thought Our Lady did not go through an ordeal of labour.
-
Catholic husbands also used to wait OUTSIDE the room in the patriarchal society. If the concept is quite foreign to you is just because of Feminism. Nothing else.
While I can't see a direct link to feminism, it is true enough that traditionally men were not present at birth. Male doctors at births are a relatively recent development and husbands being present has only become usual within the last 50 years.
-
Victorian times and before kept men out because it was tondistressing for them to witness 🙄🙄 or believed to be. It wasn’t for the woman’s comfort, or modesty. It was believed to much on men. I’d say that’s pretty early feminist thinking that a man can’t handle watching his own child be borne.
They also did it so the husband never saw his wife “untidy”. She was given time after birth to put on make up, comb her hair, and hide the blood. Husbands have just as much right to be in the room, as the woman giving birth.
-
::)
Yes, the concept is quite foreign to me, since I'm Catholic, and not a Puritan.
I'm also a man, and I'd appreciate it, madam, if you'd stop trying to tell us men how to run our families.
^^This.
I mean it’s stated over, and over again women shouldn’t tell men what to do. Now we have them saying they aren’t allowed to be in the rooms when their wives give birth. It’s not like they haven’t seen it all before... you got the baby only one way.
-
Catholic husbands also used to wait OUTSIDE the room in the patriarchal society. If the concept is quite foreign to you is just because of Feminism. Nothing else.
But why? I'd like to get at the underlying principles. I'm always looking for principles. I'm not satisfied with the feminine "mystique" notion without further explanation. Is it because the husband should not see a woman getting upset, angry, screaming, potentially throwing things? I've heard stories where the wives would cuss out their husbands for being the cause of their pain. Are you saying that men should perceive childbirth as something magical? I doubt any men are not aware of the mechanics of how birth happens. I'm not trying to fight, just wanting to understand WHY men used to wait outside. Is it because some men only make things worse because they are nervous and agitated? Not sure.
-
It was hard for my husband to see me in discomfort and unable to do anything about it. He did not complain but I was aware of his distress and found it distracting. I would have preferred to focus on the birth process without worrying about him.
Well, wouldn't that depend on the man though? I am an incredibly calm person and have been involved in some serious medical situations (one with my brother who broke his skull in a motorcycle accident, and I was by his side as he faded in and out of consciousness until the EMTs arrived). If anything, I'm much more calm than my wife. So is this some kind of principle or does it depend on the man? Some men handle things better than others.
And Our Lord on the cross undoubtedly deeply pained by the suffering of His Mother. Should He have kicked her out because He didn't want to deal with it?
-
They also did it so the husband never saw his wife “untidy”. She was given time after birth to put on make up, comb her hair, and hide the blood.
:laugh1: (for the bolded section)
-
I'm not trying to fight, just wanting to understand WHY men used to wait outside. Is it because some men only make things worse because they are nervous and agitated? Not sure.
I don't know for sure, this is just a guess...I'm thinking that in former times, the men weren't part of the birth because wives didn't need their husbands for "birth support" because the family unit was larger and men just didn't get involved in these types of things. Think about the 30s/40s in America - you had most families with 4+ children, and they all lived close to relatives (cousins, aunts, etc) and highschool friends (because people lived where they grew up). And people got married earlier, so their aunts/grandparents were much, much younger than today.
If a woman was expecting her first baby, chances are she was in her early 20s, and she had multiple female cousins, friends, aunts, a mother (in her mid 40s) and her granny (in her 60s) available for help, advice, and support both during the birth but also for the ENTIRE 9 months of the pregnancy. Hospitals were also much more staffed than they are today, with there being multiple nuns/nurses everywhere to help a young mother during the delivery.
Husbands were typically busy with other things during the pregnancy months; wives had plenty of help. Guys just didn't get involved with such things because it wasn't a necessity like it is today, since the family unit is destroyed and couples/families are WAY more independent, isolated than in former times. How many couples do you know who live 100s of miles away from their parents/siblings? This is just isn't how a normal society operates and it's not how God designed things, but it's the world we live in...
-
My husband was at all my births other than one where they kicked him out due to an emergency situation. In hindsight, I would have preferred a midwife or doula throughout labour with my husband joining us immediately at the birth. Even though my husband and I did a childbirth preparation course, this could not replace a skilled coach.
It was hard for my husband to see me in discomfort and unable to do anything about it. He did not complain but I was aware of his distress and found it distracting. I would have preferred to focus on the birth process without worrying about him.
There is a lot of social pressure these days on husbands to attend birth. One encounters an attitude not being there means he is neglectful or unloving. I disagree with this pressure. Traditionally men did not attend and they don't really do anything that would not be done better by a trained female attendant. It is better to have a husband there than for a woman to be alone or with strangers, but I do not think it is the ideal.
Hi, Jayne! I was just thinking last night as I was reading this thread that I hoped you would chime in with your perspective.
I agree with most of your post. Many men just do not handle the process well. Many men get so anxious about the situation that it only compounds the woman's distress.
The part that I disagree is the idea that the husband cannot do anything that a woman attendant cannot do. In regards to technical aspects this is almost always true, but during labor some women are in need of the loving companionship of their husband and will greatly benefit from it. While it wasn't ideal for you, it doesn't mean it is not ideal for others.
I cannot think of any moral grounds that a husband must be excluded during the birthing processs (but am open to considering any arguments if someone comes forth with some). If there is no moral reason, the decision should be left up to the discretion of the couple. I agree that there is too much pressure on men about it.
I will say that my husband's stress in the situation does not do me any favors in the stress department, but the medical care for laboring mother's is pretty horrendous and oftentimes unethical and inhuman in this country and my husband insists on being there to ensure that my wishes are respected and that nothing terrible is done to me. I am thankful for this, especially during my first delivery in which much peril was avoided because of my husband's vigilent eye and fearlessness in regards to cranky/careless nurses and obstinate doctors with outdated practices and ethics.
-
So is this some kind of principle or does it depend on the man? Some men handle things better than others.
I wouldn't say it is a general principle that husbands should never be present, but it is not going to be best for every situation.
Currently it is common for men to be treated like there is something wrong with them if they do not attend the birth. (And I could see this willingness for man bashing as due to feminism.) I would like more recognition that there can be good reasons for the husband to be absent.
-
Victorian times and before kept men out because it was tondistressing for them to witness 🙄🙄 or believed to be.
Why the eye rolls? This is a legitimate concern. I have been present while other women were in labour and found it far more difficult than giving birth myself.
-
I will say that my husband's stress in the situation does not do me any favors in the stress department, but the medical care for laboring mother's is pretty horrendous and oftentimes unethical and inhuman in this country and my husband insists on being there to ensure that my wishes are respected and that nothing terrible is done to me. I am thankful for this, especially during my first delivery in which much peril was avoided because of my husband's vigilent eye and fearlessness in regards to cranky/careless nurses and obstinate doctors with outdated practices and ethics.
Thanks for writing, Jen. This an important point that I overlooked. Sometimes women are giving birth in situations like you describe where the husband is needed to be a protector and advocate for his wife and child. Of course, a husband should be present when it is something central to his role like that.
This is, however, far from the ideal. Women should not be giving birth in situations that require the husband's intervention. It is tragic that this need so often exists.
-
Thanks for writing, Jen. This an important point that I overlooked. Sometimes women are giving birth in situations like you describe where the husband is needed to be a protector and advocate for his wife and child. Of course, a husband should be present when it is something central to his role like that.
Very true. Despite our wishes, the nursing staff tries to force the Hep B vaccine on us each time.
Just a Tip: You'll get a much better response if you tell them you wish to delay it ... instead of saying you're anti-vax. Most of them have no issue with the former, but will fight you on the latter.
-
I don't know for sure, this is just a guess...I'm thinking that in former times, the men weren't part of the birth because wives didn't need their husbands for "birth support" because the family unit was larger and men just didn't get involved in these types of things. Think about the 30s/40s in America - you had most families with 4+ children, and they all lived close to relatives (cousins, aunts, etc) and highschool friends (because people lived where they grew up). And people got married earlier, so their aunts/grandparents were much, much younger than today.
Great point, Pax. That sounds right. Today with the phenomenon of the atomic family there often isn't any other family around to help support the mother except the husband.
-
Great point, Pax. That sounds right. Today with the phenomenon of the atomic family there often isn't any other family around to help support the mother except the husband.
Yes, I also agreed with Pax. I think that various posts have shown the roots of the custom of husbands attending childbirth. It arose as a response to problems in society in general and medical practices in particular. So, while it is not immoral for men to do it, it is required because of a disordered situation.
I think the traditional practice that excluded the husband is closer to the ideal but many of us face conditions in which it is not practical.
-
While I do agree with Pax (most women do not have a significant female support system today) I don’t believe (as some here do) that everything done in the 50’s was always the ideal.
If we went back 70 years ago, men may not have been in the room during birth because there were too many people in the room tending to the mother. Small delivery rooms, plus doctor and nurses don’t leave much room for daddy.
While it may have been a custom in hospitals to give fathers the boot 70 years ago, hospitals are known to make inconvenient rules all the time to protect their backsides from lawsuits. So men being forced to sit in the waiting room may have been to avoid liability issues.
As for me, my husband was present for the births of five of our children including two cesareans where he was in the operating room with me. (He saw no surgery with the curtain up)
But I also don’t think I would have chosen my mother to be there over my husband anyway.
For the other births, my husband stayed by my side holding my hand, so he wasn’t subject to the less pretty part of labor and delivery.
So for those who haven’t been to, or through childbirth, men don’t actually have to watch the birth itself to be in the same room.
-
... I don’t believe (as some here do) that everything done in the 50’s was always the ideal.
The only two posts in this thread to explicitly mention the 50s were critical of the childbirth practices of the time. (I personally think they were very far from ideal.) While some people talked about traditional childbirth practices, there is no reason to think that "traditional" refers to the 50s.
For most of Western history, not to mention the majority of other human cultures, men did not get involved in labour and delivery. Our society is a historical anomaly in this regard. It is not surprising that this leads some people to question the current practice. What is it about our society that makes us different? While I see nothing inherently immoral about husbands being present, it is not normal.
-
The only two posts in this thread to explicitly mention the 50s were critical of the childbirth practices of the time. (I personally think they were very far from ideal.) While some people talked about traditional childbirth practices, there is no reason to think that "traditional" refers to the 50s.
For most of Western history, not to mention the majority of other human cultures, men did not get involved in labour and delivery. Our society is a historical anomaly in this regard. It is not surprising that this leads some people to question the current practice. What is it about our society that makes us different? While I see nothing inherently immoral about husbands being present, it is not normal.
This is me.
-
The only two posts in this thread to explicitly mention the 50s were critical of the childbirth practices of the time. (I personally think they were very far from ideal.) While some people talked about traditional childbirth practices, there is no reason to think that "traditional" refers to the 50s.
For most of Western history, not to mention the majority of other human cultures, men did not get involved in labour and delivery. Our society is a historical anomaly in this regard. It is not surprising that this leads some people to question the current practice. What is it about our society that makes us different? While I see nothing inherently immoral about husbands being present, it is not normal.
Well, unlike Church traditions, social traditions like those don't necessarily have any kind of authority behind them. For the longest time, people used to smoke cigarettes everywhere too. I remember seeing a retro commercial about how "4 out of 5 doctors smoke [a certain brand]", and one of them was lighting up right next to a patient. Some social changes can in fact represent true progress. We really have to avoid this tendency (common among Traditionalists) that (simplistically) old=good, new=bad. That's not ALWAYS the case. People were subject to Original Sin in the past too, you know.
So we need to dig into the WHYs and not just cite this practice as normative in principle. As Pax pointed out, in the past women had more female relatives in a support structure, and would perhaps have been more comforted by having around them people who actually had gone through childbirth and knew what she was experiencing. Someone mentioned that women perhaps would not want their husbands to see them all disheveled. Neither of these is super compelling. For a woman (and it's most women today) who lack those support structures, what's left is some notion that the woman would retain her dignity more if her husband didn't see her like that, or that the husband might stress her out (not true in the case of all men) ... none of this is particularly compelling. I know quite a few men (myself included) who are far more calm under pressure than their wives. Traditional practices certainly carry SOME weight behind them, but they need to be deconstructed to understand the rationale behind them, and whether those pertain to the historical context or other circuмstances that are subject to change. Or, another consideration, was it believed that men, after witnessing childbirth, might be somehow less attracted to their wives and less inclined to have marital relations ... and to have more children in general? Not sure.
Most women today would be offended if their husband weren't in the delivery room with them ... except for those who have husbands who "freak out" ... and those women probably wished that their husbands weren't quite so pusillanimous and would lend them the strength that men are supposed to support their wives with.
-
Well, unlike Church traditions, social traditions like those don't necessarily have any kind of authority behind them. For the longest time, people used to smoke cigarettes everywhere too. I remember seeing a retro commercial about how "4 out of 5 doctors smoke [a certain brand]", and one of them was lighting up right next to a patient. Some social changes can in fact represent true progress. We really have to avoid this tendency (common among Traditionalists) that (simplistically) old=good, new=bad. That's not ALWAYS the case. People were subject to Original Sin in the past too, you know.
So we need to dig into the WHYs and not just cite this practice as normative in principle. As Pax pointed out, in the past women had more female relatives in a support structure, and would perhaps have been more comforted by having around them people who actually had gone through childbirth and knew what she was experiencing. Someone mentioned that women perhaps would not want their husbands to see them all disheveled. Neither of these is super compelling. For a woman (and it's most women today) who lack those support structures, what's left is some notion that the woman would retain her dignity more if her husband didn't see her like that, or that the husband might stress her out (not true in the case of all men) ... none of this is particularly compelling. I know quite a few men (myself included) who are far more calm under pressure than their wives. Traditional practices certainly carry SOME weight behind them, but they need to be deconstructed to understand the rationale behind them, and whether those pertain to the historical context or other circuмstances that are subject to change. Or, another consideration, was it believed that men, after witnessing childbirth, might be somehow less attracted to their wives and less inclined to have marital relations ... and to have more children in general? Not sure.
Traditional practices are not necessarily right, but they do carry weight. I go so far as to consider them the default. We should never abandon traditional practices without careful thought. And I don't believe in social progress. Any apparent social gains invariably carry a social cost. The human condition does not improve because we are only sojourners in this world and our true home is heaven.
Trads understandably gravitate toward the old and are suspicious of the new. To a large extent that is what makes us trads. And it is a reasonable reaction to living in a culture that simplistically tends to accept old=bad, new=good.
Most women today would be offended if their husband weren't in the delivery room with them ... except for those who have husbands who "freak out" ... and those women probably wished that their husbands weren't quite so pusillanimous and would lend them the strength that men are supposed to support their wives with.
Most women are offended about their husband not being present because they are taught to be offended. This was never a problem before now. It is disturbing that you foster this by referring to men who do not wish to be present as pusillanimous. This may allow you to feel superior to other men, but you are encouraging women to be dissatisfied/ demanding with their husband. Don't you think that marriage comes under attack enough without you adding to it?
I do not consider it a weakness in my husband that he finds it difficult to see me in pain. He is like that because he loves me so much that my pain hurts him more than his own. I would not change this if I could. I would rather have him than any other man in the world and cannot imagine a better husband. But this quality does not make him well-suited to be a birth attendant. He does not object to doing it; I would prefer not to have him there.
Women should have support during childbirth. Traditionally this support came from women with training and/or personal experience of childbirth. I suspect that most women would prefer this if given the choice. I know that I would. We are, however, living in a situation where this is regularly not possible, so husbands often do it. But there is no reason to look down on husbands who do not do it or who are reluctant to do it. Their feelings are perfectly normal and understandable.
-
Traditional practices are not necessarily right, but they do carry weight. I go so far as to consider them the default. We should never abandon traditional practices without careful thought. And I don't believe in social progress. Any apparent social gains invariably carry a social cost. The human condition does not improve because we are only sojourners in this world and our true home is heaven.
Trads understandably gravitate toward the old and are suspicious of the new. To a large extent that is what makes us trads. And it is a reasonable reaction to living in a culture that simplistically tends to accept old=bad, new=good.
I said that we should give it weight. But that's as far as it goes. Human society, due to Original Sin, is in a constant state of decay. That's why at various times even in Church history, saints had to come along and "reform" the various religious orders. If this is true even within the Church, then how much more in society itself which tends to drift away from God? Our Lord made a point of uprooting the corrupt "tradtions of men" that had infected the true religion already by His day. There were times during the Middle Ages when every other priest had a mistress, and times during the Renaissance when people were given over to all manner of hedonism and depravity. Some of the most perverse practice of human history have the weight of antiquity behind them. Bishop Williamson clearly traces many of these trends toward decay. Giving traditional practice some weight is as far as we go, and no it's not reasonable to be simplistic. I'll address your other points later.
-
Giving traditional practice some weight is as far as we go, and no it's not reasonable to be simplistic.
You have been approaching this issue by asking what good reasons are there to do things differently from the current practice. You are apparently assuming it must be good unless shown otherwise. In effect, you put the burden of proof on showing the traditional way was better.
I do the opposite. I assume the old way way is better unless there is good reason to believe otherwise. I put the burden of proof on those who would claim it is better for husbands to attend births than trained, experienced women. While I am quite willing to concede that we are in a situation in which the ideal is rarely possible, I think that the traditional practice represents the ideal.
-
You have been approaching this issue by asking what good reasons are there to do things differently from the current practice. You are apparently assuming it must be good unless shown otherwise. In effect, you put the burden of proof on showing the traditional way was better.
I do the opposite. I assume the old way way is better unless there is good reason to believe otherwise. I put the burden of proof on those who would claim it is better for husbands to attend births than trained, experienced women. While I am quite willing to concede that we are in a situation in which the ideal is rarely possible, I think that the traditional practice represents the ideal.
Well, the reasons pro or con cannot be understood unless the reasons for the prior practice are known. That's why I'm probing into the reasons. Otherwise, our reasoning would simply stop at "well, it's the way it used to be done." I'm not content with that. It could be that the rationale is context-sensitive vs. some kind of universal principle, and context changes over time. Or it could be something more universal that is not subject to change. That's what I'm trying to get at. Unlike Church doctrine, I do not consider social customs to be sacrosanct.
-
Well, the reasons pro or con cannot be understood unless the reasons for the prior practice are known. That's why I'm probing into the reasons. Otherwise, our reasoning would simply stop at "well, it's the way it used to be done." I'm not content with that. It could be that the rationale is context-sensitive vs. some kind of universal principle, and context changes over time. Or it could be something more universal that is not subject to change. That's what I'm trying to get at. Unlike Church doctrine, I do not consider social customs to be sacrosanct.
Of course, social customs are neither sacrosanct nor authoritative. I doubt that anyone here is claiming otherwise.
I think one universal principle involved in this issue is that people tend to get better at tasks through experience and practice. When childbirth was attended by women only, there were often women around who had attended dozens or even hundreds of births. These female attendants often had had many children of their own. How many births will a husband have attended? Likely none if it is his first child and not many even if it's a subsequent child. And the husband has never had a baby and never will.
Just considering the question of experience, it is obvious which we could expect to do a better job.
-
I agree that before abandoning, and perhaps even before re-establishing, traditional practices, we must think long and hard about why those practices were established in the first place, what purpose they served, and if they still serve that purpose. It would be interesting to see if any writers in the past discussed why men didn't attend births - it'd be hard to find I'd imagine, as to them the reasons probably seemed obvious, but if such writings could be found it'd give us a much clearer insight than just arguing hypotheticals back and forth.
-
In referring to pusillanimous men earlier, I was not referring to case where the wife doesn't want to see his husband suffering in seeing her suffer. I was referring to the type of man who gets anxious and frantic and causes anxiety for his wife ... or situations where the husband doesn't want to endure the suffering ... so that he's unable to bring comfort and strength to his wife, rather than increased anxiety and discomfort.
If my wife is suffering, I want to be there with her, even if it causes me suffering. If my child is suffering, I want to be there. I'm not going to go run and hide because I'm afraid of my own suffering. I've watched my wife suffer (not only child birth but broken bones) and my children suffer (with a broken arm and other things) ... but I would never run away from them because it caused me pain.
Even in the former case, should we not strive emulate Our Lord, whose suffering increased infinitely because He saw Our Lady suffering?
-
I think one universal principle involved in this issue is that people tend to get better at tasks through experience and practice. When childbirth was attended by women only, there were often women around who had attended dozens or even hundreds of births. These female attendants often had had many children of their own. How many births will a husband have attended? Likely none if it is his first child and not many even if it's a subsequent child. And the husband has never had a baby and never will.
Sure, I agree with this ... and I cited it myself. But does this preclude the husband from also being there (provided there's ample space for him not to get in the way)?
But I wouldn't exactly call it universal in the sense that I meant it. What if no such women are around?
-
If my wife is suffering, I want to be there with her, even if it causes me suffering. If my child is suffering, I want to be there. I'm not going to go run and hide because I'm afraid of my own suffering. I've watched my wife suffer (not only child birth but broken bones) and my children suffer (with a broken arm and other things) ... but I would never run away from them because it caused me pain.
I am not suggesting that men run away from suffering. Some women, like myself, do not find much comfort from the presence of a husband whom we know is suffering. I found my husband's presence distracting. I felt like I had to hide my discomfort because if was hurting him. The birth process would have been easier without this.
-
What if no such women are around?
If we are considering the ideal, then that question is irrelevant. There could be an infinite number of reasons why one might not achieve the ideal, but that would not change the ideal.
-
I am not suggesting that men run away from suffering. Some women, like myself, do not find much comfort from the presence of a husband whom we know is suffering. I found my husband's presence distracting. I felt like I had to hide my discomfort because if was hurting him. The birth process would have been easier without this.
Sure, and that would be your choice ... something you would work out with your husband. Other women want their husbands there with them. I personally am extremely stoic in the midst of suffering. I suffer badly inside but don't show it on the outside. And my wife wants me there in crises for that particular reason. I also never panic. It's not a virtue necessarily, just the way I am. I've had very scary traffic situations pop out of nowhere, with my wife and/or kids in the car, and my wife was very upset, while it didn't phase me; I just tried to react the best I could under the circuмstances. That's just my temperament.
-
If we are considering the ideal, then that question is irrelevant. There could be an infinite number of reasons why one might not achieve the ideal, but that would not change the ideal.
This was in response, I guess, to an earlier categorical statement made that men should not be in the delivery room. That's why I started to ask "But why?"
But even if such women are present, would it preclude the husband also from being there? There's something to be said, also, for being a witness to the birth of my child. So I sometimes wonder if the earlier custom had to do with the fact that husbands tended to be more emotionally aloof from their wives? Men would, stereotypically, be outside in the waiting room sharing cigars with their buddies. Men would impregnate, disappear into the background, celebrate the birth (especially of young boys) with their buddies, then recede into the background again until the boy comes of age. I'm not sure that's necessarily the ideal.
-
This was in response, I guess, to an earlier categorical statement made that men should not be in the delivery room. That's why I started to ask "But why?"
But even if such women are present, would it preclude the husband also from being there? There's something to be said, also, for being a witness to the birth of my child. So I sometimes wonder if the earlier custom had to do with the fact that husbands tended to be more emotionally aloof from their wives? Men would, stereotypically, be outside in the waiting room sharing cigars with their buddies.
I am not convinced that men were emotionally aloof from their wives. The stereotype that I am familiar with is that the husband nervously paced back and forth in the waiting room. Sharing of cigars with buddies happened after the birth.
Anyhow, let's turn the question around and ask "but why?" about the husband being present. Why should the husband be there if he is not needed to support his wife? He might enjoy the experience of witnessing a birth? That is hardly compelling. In an ideal situation in which a women has support and does not need to be protected from problematic hospital procedures, what would be the purpose of the husband?
-
I agree that before abandoning, and perhaps even before re-establishing, traditional practices, we must think long and hard about why those practices were established in the first place, what purpose they served, and if they still serve that purpose. It would be interesting to see if any writers in the past discussed why men didn't attend births - it'd be hard to find I'd imagine, as to them the reasons probably seemed obvious, but if such writings could be found it'd give us a much clearer insight than just arguing hypotheticals back and forth.
It would be interesting, but I would be surprised if such writings existed. A custom as deeply established as this would probably be considered a self-evident truth. People would not have imagined men attending births other than for some sort of extraordinary situations or emergencies. They would take for granted that men do not normally attend births.
-
Why should the husband be there if he is not needed to support his wife? He might enjoy the experience of witnessing a birth? That is hardly compelling.
No, it's not just about "enjoying" it. In many ways, it's not even particularly enjoyable. He has a right to participate in such a monumental event, rather than being relegated to the role of bystander in something that pertains to the wife alone. There's symbolic significance even in the little custom of the father cutting the umbilical cord.
-
No, it's not just about "enjoying" it. In many ways, it's not even particularly enjoyable. He has a right to participate in such a monumental event, rather than being relegated to the role of bystander in something that pertains to the wife alone. There's symbolic significance even in the little custom of the father cutting the umbilical cord.
If such a right exists, why was virtually everyone in human history before the last few decades unaware of it? It is neither mentioned in Scripture nor preserved in human custom. What makes it a right? Does it exist if the mother does not want him there? What if a doctor says it is medically contraindicated? And if the custom of cutting the umbilical cord is so important how did most of humanity manage without it?
There are many customs that show the importance of the father in the life of the child. There is no need for this particular one.
-
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21701683
Here's an interesting article on it. It's a recent article looking back, so it's still mostly just guesswork, but the author still brings up some good points for both views.
-
There’s scientific evidence for the husband providing natural pain relief when he is near the woman with physical contact like hugging, massaging etc. She receives extra oxytocin from those gestures. Also, it’s rubbish that men just stayed away routinely throughout the years other than this era. St. Elisabeth’s husband was nearby when she gave birth to the royal babies. Many of my actual ancestors were supporting their wives physically up to late 1800s. There are many other examples I can’t remember but it simply is not true. This is a myth from a certain part of the world from a very specific timeframe. It’s very sad that postmodernism tradition, specifically in the United States, seems to have a tendency to do away with many beautiful things that were in fact traditional and natural. There are some ideas that slightly remind one of Puritanism. Of course, whatever the woman’s personal preference is, should be most important since you really don’t want to interfere with how comfortable she is.
-
There’s scientific evidence for the husband providing natural pain relief when he is near the woman with physical contact like hugging, massaging etc. She receives extra oxytocin from those gestures. Also, it’s rubbish that men just stayed away routinely throughout the years other than this era. St. Elisabeth’s husband was nearby when she gave birth to the royal babies.
There is a difference between being nearby and being right in the same room for the entire labour and delivery. When people gave birth in their homes, the husband could easily be close by. He could come and go from the room depending on the stage of labour and how the woman was feeling. These natural rhythms are difficult to reconcile with hospital routines and procedures.
And a husband is not the only one who can offer natural pain relief through touching. Other women, especially those who have been trained to do this, can provide it.
According to many studies, women who use doulas have fewer requests for epidurals, fewer c-sections and are less likely to require forceps or vacuum births (amongst many other things).
In a recent review of all available doula studies, it was concluded that doulas were more effective at supporting a woman than hospital staff or the woman’s friends or family. This is likely because a doula provides a trifecta of care which no other person present in a hospital birth room can provide.
These are:
Continuous care – she doesn’t leave your side for shift changes (there are 3 in a 24 hour period)
Experienced in birth and is trained in support skills
Familiar – she known to the woman.
Many studies tell us that having a doula present at your birth will make it less likely that you’ll want or ask for pain relief. A doula is trained in the art of birth support, where she learns about helpful positions, support methods and tools to help labouring women feel more comfortable and feel more supported. - See more at: https://www.bellybelly.com.au/birth/natural-pain-relief-for-labour/
I would like to see more evidence for your position than an assertion that my view is rubbish and a vague reference to your ancestors.
-
Before the Industrial Revolution and the increasing medicalization of childbirth, it was the domain of women. I have never seen anyone knowledgeable question this.
(https://imgix.bustle.com/rehost/2016/9/13/785f17fb-0dc5-4025-955f-9de77783abbc.jpg?w=970&h=546&fit=crop&crop=faces&auto=format&q=70)
-
...let's turn the question around and ask "but why?" about the husband being present. Why should the husband be there if he is not needed to support his wife? He might enjoy the experience of witnessing a birth? That is hardly compelling. In an ideal situation in which a women has support and does not need to be protected from problematic hospital procedures, what would be the purpose of the husband?
Do you assume the husband is never needed for the wife?
I can say for my husband and I, that we joined together with God, and most intimately, in creating the person/life/soul that is about to be born. Of course we both want to share in that birth, and every moment of it, with all of the pain, wounds and tears that come as well.
But, for any of the women attending to help in the process, they were definitely not there in the creation of the little one about to arrive, so the disconnect from them, and any support they could offer is very real. Especially if they are strangers at a hospital that you’ve never met before.
I am close with my mother, but still would prefer my husband be there because of the intimate nature of birth.
I had one experience with a nurse/midwife at a hospital..the one I had seen during my prenatal appointments left on vacation when I went into labor. The replacement for her was from the same office and was an obvious lesbian. I was extremely uncomfortable and upset by the switch but was stuck in the situation.
Wow, and I had always thought previously that having a male OB was uncomfortable..that was an ordeal and SO much worse.
-
Do you assume the husband is never needed for the wife?
I have already explicitly said that we live in a society in which, for various reasons, it is common for a woman to need her husband to be present at childbirth. I do not doubt that this was your experience.
My position is that this need exists because of problems in society, not because the husband's attendance is the ideal. In an ideal situation a woman would not have to worry about her female birth attendants being lesbians (there has been increasing feminist influence in midwife training in recent years) or hospital staff giving unwanted vaccinations to the child.
-
I have already explicitly said that we live in a society in which, for various reasons, it is common for a woman to need her husband to be present at childbirth. I do not doubt that this was your experience.
My position is that this need exists because of problems in society, not because the husband's attendance is the ideal. In an ideal situation a woman would not have to worry about her female birth attendants being lesbians (there has been increasing feminist influence in midwife training in recent years) or hospital staff giving unwanted vaccinations to the child.
I wrote this. Furthermore, the anonymous subforum is very annoying.
-
Here is an article (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/06/18/532921305/this-fathers-day-remembering-a-time-when-dads-werent-welcome-in-delivery-rooms) giving a brief historical overview.
..........................................
Medical historian Judy Leavitt (https://medhist.wisc.edu/faculty/leavitt/index.shtml), a professor emeritus at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, traces the history of fathers and childbirth in her book (https://www.uncpress.org/book/9780807871683/make-room-for-daddy/) "Make Room for Daddy: The Journey from Waiting Room to Birthing Room."
"Traditional childbirth was really a female event," Leavitt explains. "The woman would call her friends and relatives together to help her, and they'd be all around the birthing bed. And there'd be the midwife." A male physician might come and go, she says, and fathers might be asked to boil water, but mostly it was a room full of women.
In the 20th century, childbirth moved from the home to the hospital. In 1938, half of American women gave birth in hospitals. Within twenty years, nearly all of them did. While there were advantages to medicalized births – having antibiotics and blood banks on site, for example – Leavitt says it was lonely. "The nurses are busy, going in and out, and the laboring women are laboring on their own. And they don't like it."
Meanwhile, some fathers weren't happy about being stuck in waiting rooms, nicknamed "stork clubs," especially when they were close enough to the labor and delivery wards to hear their wives cry out. Leavitt says doctors typically didn't want fathers present for the delivery any more than they'd want them around during an appendectomy.
But parents began to push back. The women's movement and the natural childbirth movement helped drive the campaign, Leavitt says. Women argued that they should have a say in who could be around during labor and delivery. Fewer drugs, especially at a time when sedatives were widely used in labor, meant women were more aware of who was in the room.
Getting fathers into delivery rooms didn't happen overnight, and progress across the country was uneven, Leavitt found. By and large, by the 1960s, fathers were regularly allowed in the room during labor. By the 70s and 80s, they were allowed to stay for the birth. Today, most do.
-
I think the point I made earlier Jayne about wanting to share in the birth of a child that my husband and I created together with God, is something that is much more normal than insisting on a roomful of women instead. Whether they are known or unknown. It is something that is timeless, I believe, and not a recent development, as you claim, or because of feminism. Trying to connect feminism with husbands being present at birth is just about the silliest thing I’ve heard here on CI. Second only to corporal punishment for wives would be ‘normal’ in better days.
No. A true feminist would deem her husband unworthy and a nuisance bothering her during her self centered, and most painful experience.
I disagree wholeheartedly. The father belongs there for it all.
-
Yeah, this has nothing to with feminism but I also
don't think its normal for husbands to be involved in a birth. Men want to do things they can excel at or contribute to, neither of which applies to births (unless they're the doctor). Whenever topics like this come up, I ask myself, "What did Catholics in the 13th century (the most religious period in history) do?" Men weren't involved in births, that's for darn sure.
-
No one is saying that doulas and midwives aren’t valuable and that they haven’t cared for women but fathers have also been very important throughout history in childbirth. It’s the way nature designed it to be. The father is there to concieve the child with similar hormones and he is there to help her give birth to the child with the exact same hormones. Any midwife or doula would tell you the same thing. That’s why they usually encourage the man to take an active role beforehand. Not just nearby but touching the woman and being next to her.
There has to be physical contact for extra oxytocin to start from the husband. And doulas can do this too. You may have a book to reference, but that doesn’t mean that invalidates the experiences of many societies previously. St. Elisabeth started a hospital where she delivered many babies and she encouraged the husbands to be at the event. This is medieval times shockingly so I wouldn’t say your knowledgeable people are always going to be correct. Also, some families keep records and diaries going back to the 1870 so it would indeed be recorded. Not going to argue this to death though.
I could pick a book that tells me that a certain famous historical person was gαy but it wouldn’t be true necessarily. What time period? Motive of author? How much research? Etc etc? You can find a book for any opinion these days. When it comes down to it, it really is personal preference. Why do you feel so strongly about this topic, Jayne?
I think the father has a right to see his baby being born though. It’s one of the most beautiful moments of life. Unless the mother is not going to deliver safely because it would make her too upset. Again, it depends.
-
I think the point I made earlier Jayne about wanting to share in the birth of a child that my husband and I created together with God, is something that is much more normal than insisting on a roomful of women instead. Whether they are known or unknown. It is something that is timeless, I believe, and not a recent development, as you claim, or because of feminism.
I just quoted an article about the history of childbirth. The historian who researched this and wrote a book about it said, "Traditional childbirth was really a female event. The woman would call her friends and relatives together to help her, and they'd be all around the birthing bed. And there'd be the midwife. A male physician might come and go and fathers might be asked to boil water, but mostly it was a room full of women."
This is consistent with anything that I have ever read on this topic. Clearly you do not want to believe it, but that is not a good way to figure out what is true. You need some evidence that things actually happened the way you would have liked them to.
The main influential figure in introducing the idea of husbands at childbirth, Dr. Robert Bradley, wrote a book about it in 1965. (Wikipedia refers to him as "a pioneer in including fathers in the birth process".) That is how old this idea is. When I had my first child in 1981, the idea was still considered new and somewhat controversial. It has only been an established practice for a few decades. That is not timeless, no matter what you believe.
I am not aware of any evidence of women from before this time "wanting to share in the birth of their child with their husband." People just didn't think this way, as far as I can tell. I would be very happy to consider any evidence you produce, but simply stating that you believe it is not at all convincing.
It is not that silly to see a link to feminism. The natural childbirth movement (of which husband attendance was an offshoot) often talked about women's empowerment, taking charge of their own bodies, and being liberated from the male-dominated medical establishment. I was a young women when this was happening and personally encountered these ideas.
-
I do believe that the unnatural phenomenon of husbands in the delivery room is directly linked to Feminism in their campaign to totally "femininize" the men, and destroy "toxic masculinity" in all its forms. It's like they want them boys to pretty much experience and "feel" whatever the girls feel and go through in life, including in the delivery room, which is beyond ridiculous!.
Women usually have highly emotional and zero logical reasons to want their husbands in the delivery room. Many will regret it later on. I think this is just a product of the feminist society modern women grow up in. As JayneK said, it has become an expectation upon men, completely unheard in previous times. Many times it is a actually a selfish expectation of women; but modern men are told that they are jerks if they wait outside. Also, America is first in this phenomenon. Many other cultures around the world still don't do it.
-
You may have a book to reference, but that doesn’t mean that invalidates the experiences of many societies previously.
I am looking for evidence that this happened in "many societies previously".
St. Elisabeth started a hospital where she delivered many babies and she encouraged the husbands to be at the event.
This is an unlikely claim. Assuming that you are talking about St. Elizabeth of Hungary, it's true she started a hospital. But women did not normally have babies at hospitals at this time. Hospitals were for sick people. Could you cite a reference with more information on this, please.
-
I do believe that the unnatural phenomenon of husbands in the delivery room is directly linked to Feminism in their campaign to totally "femininize" the men, and destroy "toxic masculinity" in all its forms. It's like they want them boys to pretty much experience and "feel" whatever the girls feel and go through in life, including in the delivery room, which is beyond ridiculous!.
Women usually have highly emotional and zero logical reasons to want their husbands in the delivery room. Many will regret it later on. I think this is just a product of the feminist society modern women grow up in. As JayneK said, it has become an expectation upon men, completely unheard in previous times. Many times it is a actually a selfish expectation of women; but modern men are told that they are jerks if they wait outside. Also, America is first in this phenomenon. Many other cultures around the world still don't do it.
I’ve never regretted my husband being there, and watching all the many emotions on his face was extremely bonding. Was he upset he couldn’t help with pain? Sure. Did that distract me? No, because that’s honestly a weak excuse in itself. We were there for each other, and him being in the room watching his children be borne is just as important for a new father as it it the other.
In fact once men started being in the room the many abuses of women during labor were stopped. Husbands are their wives greatest defenders, and once they started saying how wrong the treatment was things changed. Is that fair to women? Hmm.. maybe not? But thank God for husbands entering the birthing room. Where would we be without our white knights? In twilight births, or being shaken around in sheets.
-
I also had more luck with male doctors listening to me, and taking my health concerns more seriously than women. I only had one kind female doctor, and the rest were rude, made fun of my concerns, and were down right unprofessional. Men in their nature are kinder towards women in distress. Women however are plain cruel.
Just because it was done in the past doesn’t give it any merit at all. They also used horse dung as headache cures. Should we retreat to that? Stop hiding behind silly emotions, and calling them logic.
If you don’t want her husband to view you down there during the whole thing than ask. I did, and he respected it. Any good man would!
-
I’ve never regretted my husband being there, and watching all the many emotions on his face was extremely bonding. Was he upset he couldn’t help with pain? Sure. Did that distract me? No, because that’s honestly a weak excuse in itself. We were there for each other, and him being in the room watching his children be borne is just as important for a new father as it it the other.
If you want others to respect your experience of childbirth then you need to show respect for the experience of others. What right do you have to dismiss someone else's experience as "a weak excuse"? Why are you trying to prove that the way you did things is the only legitimate choice for everyone?
Couple's can decide for themselves if they think that having the husband present is important or necessary. Everyone's situation is different.
When trying to determine what happened in the past, we are looking for an objective answer. But you don't get to treat your personal experience as the objective norm for everyone.
-
If such a right exists, why was virtually everyone in human history before the last few decades unaware of it?
Wow, that has to be one of the most feminist statements I've ever heard here on CI. So you're claiming now that fathers do not have a right to be present at the birth of their child? If there has at times been a contrary custom, it's only by the wishes and the concession of the fathers.
You really have exposed yourself as one of the biggest feminists here on CI. When you rant against feminism, it's truly a case of "thou doth protest too much."
-
Women usually have highly emotional and zero logical reasons to want their husbands in the delivery room. Many will regret it later on. I think this is just a product of the feminist society modern women grow up in. As JayneK said, it has become an expectation upon men, completely unheard in previous times. Many times it is a actually a selfish expectation of women; but modern men are told that they are jerks if they wait outside. Also, America is first in this phenomenon. Many other cultures around the world still don't do it.
I wouldn't say that having the husband there is necessarily feminist but I can see feminist influence in the way that some people treat it. The birth belongs to the woman and the husband is the servant who follows her orders. If she would like to swear and curse at him, that is perfectly fine. Men (and even women) who don't want to do it this way are shamed and ridiculed.
Women often want their husband present, not because they actually feel a need for him, but because this is what everyone does. It is like getting a big diamond engagement ring or going on an expensive honeymoon. It is something to show off to one's girlfriends to say "look how much my husband loves me."
Pressuring men by equating attending birth with love is just wrong.
-
Wow, that has to be one of the most feminist statements I've ever heard here on CI. So you're claiming now that fathers do not have a right to be present at the birth of their child? If there has at times been a contrary custom, it's only by the wishes and the concession of the fathers.
You really have exposed yourself as one of the biggest feminists here on CI. When you rant against feminism, it's truly a case of "thou doth protest too much."
Classic ad hominem . You can't answer the question so you change the subject to an irrelevant personal attack.
I am claiming that one cannot simply assert that a right exists. One must make an argument to establish it's existence. "You're a feminist if you disagree with me" is neither a logical nor compelling argument.
-
Classic ad hominem . You can't answer the question so you change the subject to an irrelevant personal attack.
I am claiming that one cannot simply assert that a right exists. One must make an argument to establish it's existence. "You're a feminist if you disagree with me" is neither a logical nor compelling argument.
Uhm, fathers have authority and rights over their wives and children. Period. That right only ceases when the father commands something against the moral law, Church law, divine law. You have not established that there's some moral prohibition against fathers being there. To claim that a father has no such right is clear feminism. YOU are the one who needs to make an argument stripping the father of this right. Not the other way around. Burden of proof is squarely on YOU, but you try to spin it around.
NOTE: Classic appeal to the victim card when you can't rebut the argument.
-
Uhm, fathers have authority and rights over their wives and children. Period. That right only ceases when the father commands something against the moral law, Church law, divine law. You have not established that there's some moral prohibition against fathers being there. To claim that a father has no such right is clear feminism. YOU are the one who needs to make an argument stripping the father of this right. Not the other way around. Burden of proof is squarely on YOU, but you try to spin it around.
I want you to expand on your claim that fathers have a right to be at birth because you are the only person I have ever encountered who made it. Traditionally, it was taken for granted that men would not be present so nobody ever mentioned such a right. It is only speculation that they believed this right existed. In recent decades, husbands being present at birth is usually treated as a right of the mother. Most think that a woman has a right to have whomever she wishes present at the birth which might or might not include the husband. I have never seen anyone propose that the husband had a right to be there if his wife did not want him.
The Church teaches that the authority of a husband over his wife is not absolute. As Casti Connubii says she is not obliged to "obey her husband's every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife." So, if a woman thought that having her husband see her giving birth was a violation of her dignity or somehow interfered with the birth process, it seems that she would be justified in going against his wish to be there.
Even among people who do not see it as a right of the mother, they see it as a mutual decision of the couple. Your view is highly unusual.
-
I wouldn't say that having the husband there is necessarily feminist but I can see feminist influence in the way that some people treat it. The birth belongs to the woman and the husband is the servant who follows her orders. If she would like to swear and curse at him, that is perfectly fine. Men (and even women) who don't want to do it this way are shamed and ridiculed.
I never yelled at or cursed my husband, and never felt the need to. If anything he helped me stay calmer.
So you have some kind of twisted view of all women mistreating their birth partner/husband while laboring. And that’s likely been fueled by seeing that senario portrayed in movies and television.
Unless maybe you’ve witnessed it firsthand and more than once? Because you do sound like you know the whole history of fathers during birth, and even though you haven’t provided anything historical that goes back further than 100 or so years. We do have 6000 years of history you know. Why do you keep speaking for the whole of history on this?
-
I never yelled at or cursed my husband, and never felt the need to. If anything he helped me stay calmer.
So you have some kind of twisted view of all women mistreating their birth partner/husband while laboring. And that’s likely been fueled by seeing that senario portrayed in movies and television.
Please don't take such comments personally. I am talking about common ideas that I have seen or heard about childbirth, not accusing you of anything.
Unless maybe you’ve witnessed it firsthand and more than once? Because you do sound like you know the whole history of fathers during birth, and even though you haven’t provided anything historical that goes back further than 100 or so years. We do have 6000 years of history you know. Why do you keep speaking for the whole of history on this?
Because everything I have seen about the whole of history is the same. Childbirth was the business of women. I already provided a picture of a medieval birth (i.e. more than a hundred years ago). Here are some other historical pictures. Note that they always depict birthing women with women and no fathers. Occasionally there are depictions of male doctors.
(https://quatr.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/midwife.jpg)
(https://images.fitpregnancy.mdpcdn.com/sites/fitpregnancy.com/files/styles/width_360/public/Middle-Ages-Birth-700x.jpg)(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/03/19/26D0985D00000578-3002834-image-a-27_1426805893774.jpg)
(https://cdn7.littlethings.com/app/uploads/2016/11/1293347111_7ae389bd5b_z1-850x542.jpg)
There are records from Ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome that show this. They exist for medieval Europe. When historians talk about this being the traditional method, they mean going back as far as we know about.
-
Here is an article about a childbirth expert, commenting on the issue from a medical perspective:
For many men, attending the birth of a child is a momentous and emotional occasion. However, one of the world's leading obstetricians says the father's presence can lead to his partner needing a caesarean delivery, and even to marriage break-ups and mental illness.
Michel Odent, a childbirth specialist, also believes the mother-to-be's labour can be longer, more painful and more complicated because she senses his anxiety and becomes nervous. Babies' arrival in the world would be more straightforward if women were left alone with only a midwife to help them, as they used to be, Odent will tell the Royal College of Midwives' (http://www.rcm.org.uk/) annual conference in Manchester next month, where he is a guest speaker.
"The ideal birth environment involves no men in general. Having been involved for more than 50 years in childbirths in homes and hospitals in France, England and Africa, the best environment I know for an easy birth is when there is nobody around the woman in labour apart from a silent, low-profile and experienced midwife – and no doctor and no husband, nobody else," Odent told the Observer. "In this situation, more often than not, the birth is easier and faster than what happens when there are other people around, especially male figures – husbands and doctors."
The presence of men during their partner's labour produce adrenaline, which makes the woman tense and slows her production of the hormone oxytocin, which is vital for birth, says Odent. "If she can't release oxytocin she can't have effective contractions, and everything becomes more difficult. Labour becomes longer, more painful and more difficult because the hormonal balance in the woman is disturbed by the environment that's not appropriate because of the presence of the man." What he calls "the masculinisation of the birth environment" helps to explain the fact that 24% of women in the UK now have a caesarean section, he said.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/oct/18/men-birth-labour-baby (https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/oct/18/men-birth-labour-baby)
-
3 highly-emotional women keep down-thumbing JayneK :laugh1:
-
JayneK has been making the best comments on this thread, supported by reason and historical facts, while her opponents got nothing but emotive babbling.
-
Jayne, do you know of the abuses of women during those times? About women being thrown about in sheets during labor? About twilight births? Or when women would be tied down to tables to keep from moving? It was when men started attended those stopped. It also helped that women found their voices to speak up because their husbands were there. You talk about those times like they are ideal, but those are also times when women were hurt the most.
You shouldn’t force a husband to be in the room, but he should also know he doesn’t have to see anything. If it’s a home birth it’s even easier to cover up. If he isn’t attending because he think it’s only for women, and his wife wants him their. She wants to feel his strength, and support than he should consider it.
We should also stop assuming it’s only women downthumbing her. I’d bet money it’s men too.
-
Jayne, do you know of the abuses of women during those times? About women being thrown about in sheets during labor? About twilight births? Or when women would be tied down to tables to keep from moving? It was when men started attended those stopped. It also helped that women found their voices to speak up because their husbands were there. You talk about those times like they are ideal, but those are also times when women were hurt the most.
The twilight births and being tied down were practices of the time immediately before husbands began attending births. I have already identified the 50s as being a time of horrible birthing practices. I even said it twice. But these have nothing to do with the women-only births that I consider the ideal.
Yes, it was helpful for men to attend births in order to stop the awful hospital procedures going on. It is still sometimes necessary for men to be present to protect their wife from the hospitals. But this does not make men attending childbirth the ideal. It is something needed to deal with a disordered situation.
This is what I think is the ideal: The woman goes through labour and delivery in a home-like, comfortable, quiet room with one or two trained female attendants. There are medical services immediately available nearby in case of emergencies. The husband is also nearby and perhaps visits with her a bit in the earlier stages of labour depending on how she is handling it. As soon as the baby is born (assuming he does not require medical attention) the father joins mother and child while she breastfeeds the baby for the first time. The parents and baby are allowed to bond for a while. Mother and baby get cleaned up a bit and dressed. The father may need some attention too if it has been a long labour. At this point, any older children from the family can come to greet the new sibling, if practical (depending on what time of day it is, etc.) There should be an adult other than the parents in charge of the older children at this time. This could be a good time for a snack with the whole family if the mother has not eaten earlier. The mother spends the next two weeks resting, looking after her personal needs, and feeding the baby, while others look after her usual duties.
-
Women often want their husband present, not because they actually feel a need for him, but because this is what everyone does. It is like getting a big diamond engagement ring or going on an expensive honeymoon. It is something to show off to one's girlfriends to say "look how much my husband loves me."
Very intelligent observation. Women love to brag about such things. That's why I take everything they say with a grain of salt.
-
JayneK has been making the best comments on this thread, supported by reason and historical facts, while her opponents got nothing but emotive babbling.
#Quid/Croix/Judith
-
The Church teaches that the authority of a husband over his wife is not absolute. As Casti Connubii says she is not obliged to "obey her husband's every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife." So, if a woman thought that having her husband see her giving birth was a violation of her dignity or somehow interfered with the birth process, it seems that she would be justified in going against his wish to be there.
And the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate that it's a violation of "right reason" ... objectively. Default is always in favor of the husband's authority. This is not a subjective standard either. One woman might protest that a husband limiting her budget might be not in harmony with right reason or the dignity due to a wife. Subjective considerations such as an individual woman's protest do not suffice to meet this standard. Every woman who disobeys her husband would make that claim. You have at no point demonstrated that a husband's presence is a violation of her dignity or of right reason.
Ironically, I have actually applied this same standard to your position on corporal punishment. I have argued that it's objectively against the "dignity due to wife", and someone on those threads actually quoted this precise passage against you. So if any given wife decides that it's against her dignity for a husband to subject her to corporal punishment, then it's OK for her to refuse and even separate from her husband as a result? "So if a woman thought ..." "So if a woman thought that being subjected to corporal punishment was a violation of her dignity, it seems that she would be justified in going against his wish to [do it]." No? You regularly contradict yourself so you can cling to any given position for emotional reasons.
-
Traditionally, it was taken for granted that men would not be present so nobody ever mentioned such a right. It is only speculation that they believed this right existed.
And it's nothing but speculation on your part that no right existed simply because husbands, either out of custom or our of personal preference, traditionally opted out of being present at the birth. You have to demonstrate that men were barred from the woman's birth out of principle vs. merely not present in practice ... for one practical or customary consideration or another. I'm sure that this wasn't true 100% of the time either ... even if it was the general practice. At no point has the Church or any moral theologian taught that it's somehow inappropriate, wrong, or a violation of the mother's dignity for a husband/father to be present at the birth. Consequently, it's a husband's right (deriving from his general authority) to be present ... until proven otherwise.
Every father has a right to watch his child be born and brought into the world. It's a monumental event in the life of the child, and the father has every right to witness it if he so chooses. It's HIS child also, not just the wife's/mother's.
-
Women often want their husband present, not because they actually feel a need for him, but because this is what everyone does. It is like getting a big diamond engagement ring or going on an expensive honeymoon. It is something to show off to one's girlfriends to say "look how much my husband loves me."
Often? Sometimes? This is a pointless generalization. It may be true for some women some of the time. Most of the time there are mixed motives. Perhaps this is part of it for some, perhaps not. In no event does this demonstrate any kind of principle.
Early your protested that a woman might perceive the father's presence to be a violation of her dignity, and now you attempt to impugn the motives of those who do not feel that way? For whatever reason, even if the motive is not entirely impure, the woman clearly does not object to the husband's presence ... and consequently there's not question of these women perceiving it to be a violation of their dignity.
-
And the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate that it's a violation of "right reason" ... objectively. Default is always in favor of the husband's authority. This is not a subjective standard either. One woman might protest that a husband limiting her budget might be not in harmony with right reason or the dignity due to a wife. Subjective considerations such as an individual woman's protest do not suffice to meet this standard. Every woman who disobeys her husband would make that claim. You have at no point demonstrated that a husband's presence is a violation of her dignity or of right reason.
Let's say that a husband wanted to watch his wife going to the bathroom. Understandably she feels very uncomfortable with this. How would we objectively demonstrate that this is a violation of her dignity? And yet I think that most people would agree that it was.
Anyhow, as I posted earlier, we have one of the top obstetricians in the world, Michael Odent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Odent) saying that the husband's presence is detrimental to the birth process, with potential for serious physical and emotional complications. Therefore it is objectively contrary to right reason for the husband to be present. Therefore he does not have a right to be there.
-
Anyhow, as I posted earlier, we have one of the top obstetricians in the world, Michael Odent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Odent) saying that the husband's presence is detrimental to the birth process, with potential for serious physical and emotional complications. Therefore it is objectively contrary to right reason for the husband to be present. Therefore he does not have a right to be there.
Midwives encourage fathers to participate in the birth by encouraging the mother thus producing more oxytocin the hormone necessary for natural birth.
-
This is what I think is the ideal: The woman goes through labour and delivery in a home-like, comfortable, quiet room with one or two trained female attendants. There are medical services immediately available nearby in case of emergencies. The husband is also nearby and perhaps visits with her a bit in the earlier stages of labour depending on how she is handling it. As soon as the baby is born (assuming he does not require medical attention) the father joins mother and child while she breastfeeds the baby for the first time. The parents and baby are allowed to bond for a while.
So basically, as long as the father is not present while the child passes through the birth canal then we’ve got an ideal birth situation. :furtive:
-
Often? Sometimes? This is a pointless generalization. It may be true for some women some of the time. Most of the time there are mixed motives. Perhaps this is part of it for some, perhaps not. In no event does this demonstrate any kind of principle.
It is not pointless.
Men are treated like jerks for not attending the birth. In this thread alone, we have seen many disparaging comments towards men who do not wish to do so. The excuse for this man-bashing is that such men are denying women needed love and support.
So if women are saying they want their husband present merely because this is the current fashion, then the harsh judgments against these men wrong and unjust. As you admit, we do not actually know what women's motives are for claiming to want husbands present. Probably, in many or most cases women's motives are mixed. Nevertheless, the absent husband is always treated as the bad guy as if all women only had a pure and genuine need for his presence which he is cruelly denying her.
Here is an article discussing the pressure on men to attend birth: https://www.todaysparent.com/pregnancy/giving-birth/i-didnt-want-my-husband-in-the-delivery-room/ (https://www.todaysparent.com/pregnancy/giving-birth/i-didnt-want-my-husband-in-the-delivery-room/)
Some quotes:
Before the 1960s, fathers in North America were rarely present at the births of their children. However, social norms around childbirth have changed dramatically in recent years, and now partners of both sexes are expected to play an integral supporting role during childbirth. For some couples, this is a wonderful dynamic, but for others—perhaps more than care to admit—the expectations can result in pressure for the partner and anxiety for the birthing mom.
Yet, the option of a partner sitting out for a birth isn’t often talked about today. Many couples feel pressured to have their partner in the delivery room because a partner’s involvement and support during delivery is often seen as proof of their commitment as a parent and significant other.
“Nowadays it’s seen as the norm that a ‘good partner’ will be there and be hands-on, but that’s not the best situation for everyone,” says Bailey Gaddis (http://www.baileygaddis.com/), a California-based author and doula (a birth coach). Some moms, including Hiraldo, worry about what others will think about their partners not being present for the birth. “I thought my mom friends would judge [my husband] and think that he didn’t want to be there for me,” she says. “I thought my mom friends would judge [my husband] and think that he didn’t want to be there for me,” she says.
-
Midwives encourage fathers to participate in the birth by encouraging the mother thus producing more oxytocin the hormone necessary for natural birth.
Dr. Odent is a renowned obstetrician that I had already heard of before seeing this article. You are not backing up your claim with any studies or even putting your name to your opinion. Obviously, I am going to take his view over yours.
-
Anyhow, as I posted earlier, we have one of the top obstetricians in the world, Michael Odent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Odent) saying that the husband's presence is detrimental to the birth process, with potential for serious physical and emotional complications. Therefore it is objectively contrary to right reason for the husband to be present. Therefore he does not have a right to be there.
Let's take a step back. You've evidently conceded that an individual woman's perception that something violates her dignity does not suffice to override a husband's rights. That opens the floodgates for women to disobey pretty much anything commanded by their husbands.
So now you bring the opinion of one obstetrician and try to leverage that into claiming that it's "objectively" contrary to right reason. Come back to me with a credible (pre Vatican II) theologian and then we can talk. For that matter, find ONE Traditional Catholic priest who agrees with you about this, and then I might be a LITTLE more open to it. I can find some "expert" in any field saying pretty much anything. I could find 10s of thousands of psychologists who would claim that corporal punishment of a wife by her husband has the potential for serious physical and emotional complications. This man's opinion is contradicted by pretty much every hospital and medical practice in the country ... which all allow husbands to be present at births. Just as the husband's presence MAY lead to complications, so too could his ABSENCE lead to serious physical and emotional complications.
Your argument is essentially that one guy has an opinion, and now that makes it an objective standard.
-
Jayne, being shaken in sheets went back to Middle Ages.
I see the flaw in your logic with women have the right to refuse their husband when it goes against their dignity. Well, that’s a pretty general statement. A woman can say that about anything... I don’t think that applies here. I’m also not trying to be to graphic, but men will see more during the making of the baby than actual birth. There’s usually a privacy sheet, and if there isn’t. You can request one.
I seriously keep forgetting the button thing here 🙄
-
Dr. Odent is a renowned obstetrician that I had already heard of before seeing this article. You are not backing up your claim with any studies or even putting your name to your opinion. Obviously, I am going to take his view over yours.
You always accept whatever view happens to please you. Should I cite top psychologists and behavioral scientists who argue that corporal punishment of wives by husbands have the potential for serious physical and emotional consequences? What would you say to those?
-
It is not pointless.
Men are treated like jerks for not attending the birth. In this thread alone, we have seen many disparaging comments towards men who do not wish to do so. The excuse for this man-bashing is that such men are denying women needed love and support.
More generalizations. Everything depends on WHY they're skipping. I doubt you'll ever find a man who has skipped on PRINCIPLE (because you can count on one hand the people who claim that it's wrong for a husband to be there). So is the man who skips the birth of his child because he's got tickets to a playoff game not a jerk?
-
Michael doesn’t also believes sex therapy should be used during child birth. How’s that for a woman’s dignity, Jayne?
-
It wouldn’t let me modify “odent”
-
Let's take a step back. You've evidently conceded that an individual woman's perception that something violates her dignity does not suffice to override a husband's rights. That opens the floodgates for women to disobey pretty much anything commanded by their husbands.
Of course I do not believe something so obviously wrong. I neither said nor implied that I did. If you cannot refrain from straw man arguments I am not interested in discussing this with you. I expect honest arguments from my opponents.
Your argument is essentially that one guy has an opinion, and now that makes it an objective standard.
This "one guy" is one of the world's leading experts in this area. His opinion carries a great deal of weight. Yes, it will be possible to find people who disagree with him. Are things only an objective standard when there is unanimous agreement on them? A person who can reasonably be considered to know what he is talking about says that it is detrimental. Can't we reasonably expect this expert to know more about it than the husband?
As a practical matter, I would advise any woman who feels she has grounds to disobey her husband, because he is demanding something against dignity or reason, to discuss it with a good priest. There is a danger of self-deception if she reaches a decision on her own. I would be very surprised if a priest told a woman that her husband had a right to be present at the birth when she did not him there, especially if one of the factors were expert medical advice against it.
-
Jayne, being shaken in sheets went back to Middle Ages.
Then it was not a practice that was stopped by husbands starting to attend births, as was claimed.
I am saying that the ideal is the tradition of female birth attendants, not that every birth practice that ever existed should be retained. It is possible to combine that tradition with the knowledge of modern medicine.
-
Why did the husbands in the past, refrain from attending births as a rule, if they had the authority to be there if they wanted to? They could have simply made the request if they were that interested. ::)
Husbands could have easily changed the norm back in the patriarchal days, when they wore the pants. Yet, they didn't. Now they are welcome and expected in the delivery room and it's the women who wear the pants, cause we live in a Matriarchy :jester:
-
You always accept whatever view happens to please you. Should I cite top psychologists and behavioral scientists who argue that corporal punishment of wives by husbands have the potential for serious physical and emotional consequences? What would you say to those?
Since I am not a proponent of corporal punishment of wives (however much you try to create the impression that I am) I would have nothing to say about it.
I am getting miffed that you drag this subject in whenever you disagree with me about something. It is not even my actual view and yet you raise the subject again and again. And then people complain about how the subject gets talked about too much. It is not because this forum is filled with men who want to hit women, but because it is your go to "red herring".
More generalizations. Everything depends on WHY they're skipping. I doubt you'll ever find a man who has skipped on PRINCIPLE (because you can count on one hand the people who claim that it's wrong for a husband to be there). So is the man who skips the birth of his child because he's got tickets to a playoff game not a jerk?
That article that I cited from Today's Parent was all about men who were absent from birth on principle. It is not unusual for men to be uncomfortable with being present at birth and that is, in itself, a good reason not to be there. An uncomfortable husband is quite likely not going to do a good job of comforting his wife and they should find someone else to do that job who will do it better.
There is no reason to think that it is common for men to "skip out because they have tickets to a playoff game." You keep promoting all these negative stereotypes about men, apparently so you can show off how superior you are to the usual sort of men. (You never talk about "we men have this problem we ought to correct." It's always "those other men are horrible but not me.") There is already a problem in our society with demonizing men and it is really irresponsible of you to keep throwing fuel on the fire as you do.
-
This "one guy" is one of the world's leading experts in this area. His opinion carries a great deal of weight.
Sure, to you. He's obviously in the minority, since I know of no hospitals which bar husbands from the birth ... while most bar them from other emergency situations when they'd be in the way. Now, if a C section were taking place, the husband would be removed from the immediate vicinity, for medical reasons. So the fact that the hospitals allow them to stay there means that they do not consider it to be any kind of serious and proximate threat to the childbirth process.
OK, so how would you apply the consensus of psychologists today that corporal punishment causes grave harm to the wife?
-
Since I am not a proponent of corporal punishment of wives (however much you try to create the impression that I am) I would have nothing to say about it.
You are in fact an advocate of the husband's RIGHT to use corporal punishment. That's what is in fact under discussion here, a husband's rights. But applying your own standards, if I find psychologists who say that it could cause serious emotional or psychological harm, that would overturn that right. Nice attempt to be slippery, but you fail since we weren't talking about actual practice but about rights.
-
Michael Odent also believes sex therapy should be used during child birth. How’s that for a woman’s dignity, Jayne?
I think you misunderstood. Michael Odent wrote a book about therapeutic uses of water. One of these therapies is using water during labour and delivery, as in a birthing pool. Another use for water he describes in the book is for sex therapy. Did you see the review that said, "The book includes a practical section on the use of water during birth and in various therapies, particularly sex therapy."? I can see how that might have confused you, but it does not mean sex therapy should be used during childbirth.
-
There is no reason to think that it is common for men to "skip out because they have tickets to a playoff game."
:facepalm:
That was an illustration (by way of extreme example) regarding the principle that the WHY of why a husband skips is what indicates the nature of the action.
For all your boasting about education and intelligence, you really do fall short when it comes to the application of logic.
Despite your attempt to present the contrary, you really are an insufferable feminist. I know who wears the pants in your household.
-
You are in fact an advocate of the husband's RIGHT to use corporal punishment.
I am an advocate of judging the historic use and understanding of corporal punishment within its historical context. I refuse to be drawn into yet another discussion of this. We have both made every possible point we have to make about it many times already.
I guess you felt in danger of losing the current argument so you wanted to change the subject.
For all your boasting about education and intelligence, you really do fall short when it comes to the application of logic.
Despite your attempt to present the contrary, you really are an insufferable feminist. I know who wears the pants in your household.
Yes, you have definitely given up on discussing the subject under debate. You have, yet again, gone into full personal attack mode.
Your lectures on logic would be far more compelling if you yourself were better at logic. Your tendency to rely on personal insults has no place in logical debate. In that respect, at least, I am better at logic than you are.
-
I am an advocate of judging the historic use and understanding of corporal punishment within its historical context. I refuse to be drawn into yet another discussion of this.
:laugh1: You're running away because you can't refute the contradiction. I am not about to discuss the particulars of that subject here, just the principle that if you can find one or more secular medical experts who hold an opinion about something, that overturns any "right" a husband might have over his wife, due to it being against "right reason". Welcome to the feminist paradise.
-
:laugh1: You're running away because you can't refute the contradiction.
You can ask anybody; I never run out of ability to argue. I have however run out of patience. I find intellectual discussions fun and stimulating. When it turns into nastiness and insults, it is not fun anymore. I'm done. Good night.
-
Ladislaus, I’m not taking sides in this thread, but it’s unfair for a civil debate to bring into the discussion the topic of corporal punishment or any other topic. One should be able to debate based on the facts at hand.
-
Ladislaus, I’m not taking sides in this thread, but it’s unfair for a civil debate to bring into the discussion the topic of corporal punishment or any other topic. One should be able to debate based on the facts at hand.
Pax, you're not quite following the reasoning here either.
We're discussing a husband's rights, and the limits thereof. In the case of fathers being present at childbirth, JayneK cited the opinion of one medical professional and claimed that, based on that one opinion, the father's rights are thereby contradicted. That's a principle of argument she has put forth. So, to test the principle, I invoked an earlier disagreement. JayneK argued that husbands have a right to apply corporal punishment to their wives. So I asked how the principle would apply to that case, since one can find MANY medical professionals who would claim that it would cause serious emotional and potentially physical harm to the wife ... and, to apply JayneK's reasoning, therefore the right does not exist. That example was a way to test the sincerity and consistency of JayneK's argumentative principle.
-
Why some husbands should not be present for childbirth...
Husband #1 Went to Lamaze classes with wife through month 8, then chickened out. Wife disappointed and upset. Sister stepped in because she had been a Lamaze coach. After baby was born, husband mad at wife for letting him miss out on the miracle of new life.
Husband #2 Stayed at wife's bedside throughout labor up to and including birth which required use of forceps. Mom went home with baby, Dad kept in hospital with concussion. He passed out and hit his head on the floor.
-
Anyhow, as I posted earlier, we have one of the top obstetricians in the world, Michael Odent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Odent) saying that the husband's presence is detrimental to the birth process, with potential for serious physical and emotional complications. Therefore it is objectively contrary to right reason for the husband to be present. Therefore he does not have a right to be there.
Jaynek, this is illogical. If something is objectively wrong, it’s wrong all the time. If something is only “potentially” wrong, then it’s not objectively wrong. A husband being present for a birth is not objectively wrong, 1) because a human birth isn’t a moral issue, 2) he does have an inherent right to see his child, 3) the morality of his presence depends on the circuмstances. It would only be wrong in a grave situation (ie he knows it would freak out the mother or the doctor has a restraining order against him...or some other weird, but valid, reason).
—-
So I asked how the principle would apply to that case, since one can find MANY medical professionals who would claim that it would cause serious emotional and potentially physical harm to the wife ... and, to apply JayneK's reasoning, therefore the right does not exist. That example was a way to test the sincerity and consistency of JayneK's argumentative principle.
—-
Yes, that’s a fair comparison. Sorry for commenting prematurely.
-
Jaynek, this is illogical. If something is objectively wrong, it’s wrong all the time. If something is only “potentially” wrong, then it’s not objectively wrong. A husband being present for a birth is not objectively wrong, 1) because a human birth isn’t a moral issue, 2) he does have an inherent right to see his child, 3) the morality of his presence depends on the circuмstances. It would only be wrong in a grave situation (ie he knows it would freak out the mother or the doctor has a restraining order against him...or some other weird, but valid, reason).
If what Dr Odent claims is true, that fathers being present during birth is medically inadvisable, then it is against reason for the father to insist on being there.
One may argue that the claim is not true, but if it is true, it affects the husband's right to be there. Of course it is a moral issue to do things that put one's wife and child at risk.
Risk is an another way to say potential for harm. Just because it is not certain to cause harm does not make it OK. It is only acceptable to take risks when there are proportionate benefits. The man's emotional satisfaction in witnessing the miracle of birth is not proportionate to a greatly increased risk of C section or the other problems described by Dr Odent. Whatever inherent right a husband has to be there, it is not prudent to attend the birth under these circuмstances.
-
As Ladislaus has pointed out, your entire argument is based on ONE doctor, who said it is POTENTIALLY bad. If he did some study wherein he said that 99% of the time out of 100,000 cases it’s bad, that’s different. He’s making a generalized statement and you’re expanding that erroneously to the level of nearly-always. Come on, that’s weak.
-
I feel it is unśeemly for a women to consistently argue with men.
It is not feminine behaviour but strident feminist behaviour.
-
I feel it is unśeemly for a women to consistently argue with men.
It is not feminine behaviour but strident feminist behaviour.
Especially when she presumes to "explain" to men (who aren't even her husband!) what they're "permitted" to do and what they're not; whether they have certain "rights" or not.
What must her home life be like?? :o
-
A few things, in no particular order -
It used to be more customary that, in a normal circuмstance and not some emergency, a woman did not want her husband present for the birth because she was so unattractive then. After the birth, it was typical for the mom to want to be beautified and get fixed up - she got her hair brushed, etc. - then the husband could see her and baby who was by then, also often finished with post-birth care. The wife usually wanted to be presentable and attractive, and especially then if possible.
In Genesis 3:21 it says: "Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam: and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it." Sounds a little like a pain killer/anesthetic moment there?
Many of us remember the old days on CathInfo when no gender was obvious. There were no pink or blue symbols. One had to guess, if one was that interested - and using just what the member was saying to go by - if the participant was male or female. The playing field was level. One could participate just as a Catholic. Now right on the face of it, there are two teams here, with all the obvious and automatic feelings, sometimes prejudices, that brings to bear. It is hard now for men to not call out the women members as not being submissive, say, or to not be pre-programmed to often dismiss whatever she may say - or just, plain resent their participation. And it is hard for the women to not be discouraged as not being taken seriously. There is an element of the women having to earn respect, instead of automatically having it to start with, before losing it later and deservedly after doing some posting, as is the case with men. The "gender reveal" on CathInfo has made a difference.
-
It’s very easy to recognize a woman’s emotional arguments, regardless of an indicator. This is not a knock against them; its how God made them.
As you point out about the “good old days” of birthing and women wanting to remain attractive to their husbands - remember when women used to accept their natures and not try to debate philosophical principles with men?
-
Is the OP a guy?
-
God specifically cursed women with pain and sorrow during childbirth (Genesis 3:16). Therefore, any use of drugs or similar things to reduce this pain and sorrow is an attempt to circuмvent God’s curse, and is immoral.
MODERATOR:
Peter15and1 posted this "pearl of wisdom" anonymously. So he knew it was crap when he posted it.
Oh, and by the way it's spelled "Medicine". That's not exactly a hard word to spell.
Is the OP a guy?
You only had to read the OP. But here it is.
-
OK. So God also specifically cursed men to work, and by the sweat of their brow to bring forth the fruits of the field. Does that mean, following the OP's argument, that the use of tractors, etc is immoral--since it would result in the reduction of actual physical labor?
Oh brother!
-
OK. So God also specifically cursed men to work, and by the sweat of their brow to bring forth the fruits of the field. Does that mean, following the OP's argument, that the use of tractors, etc is immoral--since it would result in the reduction of actual physical labor?
Oh brother!
Or working in an air conditioned office sitting at a desk! Yikes! Perish the thought ???
-
I've not read this whole thread but I know I wanted my husband in the delivery room with me in case our baby was in need of emergency Baptism and also to advocate for me. I don't give birth in hospitals anymore, but when I did I recall that you are never guaranteed a doctor you like or even know. It could very likely be a heathen third worlder or, worse, an abortionist. I enjoy having him there to pray the rosary and give me words of encouragement. I know it's not what was traditionally done, but we aren't living in the days of "good supportive female family members"....if I invited mine I'd be in the company of faithless drug addicts.