This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
What's wrong with C-sections? Let me try to answer my own question. It looks complicated: https://islamqa.info/en/answers/92831/ruling-on-caesarean-births
There appears to be some sort of stigma attached to it, and a belief it makes future pregnancy less likely? I lack the background to know if any of this is true.
Doctors don’t recommend multiple cesareans because the scarring accumulates and leads to bad outcomes.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/c-section/expert-answers/c-sections/faq-20058380#:~:text=Each%20repeat%20C%2Dsection%20is,Problems%20with%20the%20placenta.
On the other hand, doctors often will not allow a vaginal birth after a cesarean. https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/labor-and-delivery/in-depth/vbac/art-20044869
So once you have one cesarean, you’re pretty much going to have only cesareans, which will limit the number of healthy pregnancies.
—— on a slightly related note, I've heard stories from mothers where the doctors basically decided to do a cesarean because the labor was taking too long and the doctor didn't want to stick around.
I wouldn't call it "don't allow." VBAC's can be very dangerous, they can also be safe, the relevant care team will likely try to assess the risks and summarize for the patient. OB is pretty notorious for being a bit more heavy handed with consent than some specialties, but that's ultimately not that unreasonable when many women are interested in fucking off and having a "natural" birth at home even when it's high risk to the baby and mom (and notoriously, will see the doctor even when it's a consequence of their own shitty decision).
This over focus on outcomes and liability potential is also why you shouldn't trust those stories from mothers. Yes it probably happens at times, and certainly used to be more common back in the days when OB was >85% male instead of >85% female, but OBs are way too worried about getting sued and making sure the baby is okay to do that for the most part.*
And hospitals are very likely to have a dedicated laborist these days anyway.
*"Force" mom to have a C-Section and something goes wrong because you wanted to go play golf? That's a multi-million dollar liability judgement. Everyone knows that isn't worth it.
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, my state has gone back to a midwives by default, call a doctor if necessary protocol, even in the hospitals, because of that kind of thing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I certainly can't imagine many women having 4 or more children if all of them had to be born via C-section. We have an interesting natural experiment in Brazil, where the C-section rate seems astronomically high.
I guess in the end it all boils down to the simple advice that "you should have your first child while you're still young". You can imagine how popular that is among women anywhere.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think it has something to do with scarring from multiple c-sections, and longer recovery time. My mother said that one of the big reasons she never had a third child was because the first was a c-section, and at the time they just automatically recommended it for subsequent births, and then the second was harder to recover from and she didn't want to do it again.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link