Why Are Multiple C-Sections "Harder"?

I had a question asked of me by Shati in a comment response to my post Question About Repeat C-Sections. Since my answer got a little wordy (isn't everything I write? LOL) I decided to put my answer in a separate post. Here's her question:

Hi There! I have had three c-sections and i really desperately want one more baby via c secion(i dont want to vbac!) I asked my GP doctor and she asked the OB doctors, and they advised me not to get pregnant again. They also said that it's still up to me..if i do get pregnant then they'll monitor me very closely. I'm really stuck here now! My third c-section was elective. Can anyone who had 4 c-sections explain to me if it was any harder than three c-sections? Pleaseeee help me!

Well, Shati, I'm not sure if you're asking why multiple c-sections are harder, or why they're riskier. So I'll answer both. But first, just in case you change your mind someday about having a VBAC, there is the possibility of having a VBAC, but chances are the only way you'd get one is to use a midwife.

Depending on the state you live in, and the laws, some more experienced midwives are willing to do a VBAC even after four cesareans, although that is not the norm, and it depends on your situation. Here in the state I live in, there are a ton of very experienced midwives, and two or three of them are willing to consider a VBAC after multiple cesareans. Another state I lived in, they would only do it after two, no more, and you had to have at least a year between pregnancies. Just in case you changed your mind. You just need to research and talk to your local midwives. You can usually find lists of them online.

EDIT: I also should mention what a midwife told me: "It's your body, they can't make you have a surgery that you don't want." That being said, you won't be treated very well in a hospital where you refuse a c-section after more than one previous cesarean. They don't like to be inconvenienced. And watch out...they could try to pull stuff on you if you don't cooperate with their "routine" once your baby is born. Threatening "uncooperative" mothers with a call to social services is one way some hospitals try to keep you in line. This is more common with first-time mothers, but you should be aware of it.

As far as why repeat c-sections are harder: I didn't really feel that mine were all that much harder, but I do tend to recover from them somewhat easier than some women. It's kind of up to your body. There was a slight increase in the level of difficulty in my recovery over the first four cesareans, but not much. You can have a bad recovery one time, and a good one the next. My fourth c-section was the hardest, but I think that was because my doc was evil and gave me the minimum amount of drugs. ;-) Hope for his sake he never gets in a car accident and has a doc like him controlling his meds! My fifth was the easiest recovery by far, and I believe it was because I was on a raw food diet. I recovered soooo easy from that one. Oh yeah, and my doc was awesome and gave me lots of drugs, too. LOL.

Now, if what you meant to ask is why doctors consider repeat VBAC's more DANGEROUS, that's a different story. My personal opinion is that they don't want the liability in case something goes wrong, so they freak you out with statistics that I KNOW are being misrepresented, because I've read the same studies they are referring to, and they leave out important information that allows you to understand and weigh the REAL risks. There definitely are more risks with more c-sections, but it's not as bad as they make it out to be. (Don't these people know anything about repeat business? LOL)

There are a few main things to consider. One is placenta problems. With more c-sections, you have a slightly higher risk of the placenta choosing to grow in the wrong spot, like over the cervix or previous scar tissue. Over the cervix is particularly bad, but it can be managed. It's just not the best situation to be in. More serious can be when the placenta grows through the side of the uterus. Obviously a bad thing. These can be detected during ultrasounds, and you can be delivered early if necessary. The risk goes up a little more with each pregnancy, but the risks aren't that big. Of course, if you're the one out of fifty or a hundred (or whatever it is--don't quote me, because it's been a long time since I researched it) that it happens to, that's of little comfort to you or your loved ones.

The other big issue is uterine rupture. That's when you get a tear in your uterus, and that can cause hemorrhaging, and in worse-case scenarios, death for you and/or your baby. That's rare, but it happens. But what they DON'T tell you is that the studies don't differentiate between a catastrophic rupture and a "window" rupture--and there is a BIG difference.

A catastrophic rupture is when the uterus tears all the way through. That's what can kill you. You bleed out quick, and if you're not right by a O.R., you're in trouble. But that kind is rare. Another thing they don't tell you is that a woman who has no previous c-sections, and is given drugs to induce labor for a vaginal birth, is actually more likely to have a uterine rupture than a mother who has one or two c-sections. Yet they don't have a problem pushing those drugs on you, or tell you about that risk, do they?

The other kind of rupture, which is much more common, is the "window" rupture. That's when you get little holes in the inner lining of the uterus that do NOT go all the way through. They are not a big deal, and you can have those and they won't hurt you...though the docs always repair them when they find them during your c-section. That kind isn't dangerous, and yet they are lumped in with the kind of ruptures that can kill you, which makes the statistics sound much, much worse.

Fortunately, I've educated myself, and since I don't believe in birth control anyway, and I trust God 100% with everything, including my body and my reproductive health, the doctors can't scare me. And many of them WILL try to scare you. I've had doctors go so far as to basically tell me that if I have a baby, there's a good chance I will die, and leave my other children motherless. Implying that I'm a bad mother, essentially. There is a woman doctor in my doctor's rotation who is the one who said that to me, and I told my current doc I will NOT see that woman again, and she will never deliver me--I'll go to a different hospital if she's on duty. I do not trust her in any way, shape or form. If you get a doc like that, RUN, because they do not care about you. Education is one thing--scare tactics and guilt-trips are another, and it's just unprofessional and wrong.

My doctor now is great. I don't have a problem with him educating me on the risks and my options, and he's always nice about it, and realistic. I get the real information from him, without scare tactics. He respects me, and that's important in a doctor. Plus, he really seems to know his stuff. He's cautious, but not an alarmist. He's really great.

Now I can't (and won't) tell you what you should do, but hopefully this gives you some more insight into the real risks of multiple c-sections. I'm not a doctor obviously, and this is all just my personal opinion based on my own research--you shouldn't trust me, you should find out for yourself. I'm pregnant with my sixth right now. I'm not worried. When it's my time to die, it will happen whether or not I'm pregnant. I can't stop that by not having a baby. So if I'm going to die, I'd rather it be while carrying or delivering a baby, than by getting hit by a bus! That's my personal take on the situation. I know people who have had at least nine c-sections, without complications, and one of those people had the old, less-safe, vertical incision. No problems for her so far.

Personally, I think three c-sections isn't that big of a deal. Four is on the border of having higher risks, but then you're talking going from 1-2% on some of these risks, to maybe 3-4%. So it's not like it's a 50% risk or anything (like they would like for you to believe). However, the risk is still there. There's always at least a 1% risk of death with ANY surgery, because stuff just goes wrong sometimes. And if you're overweight, your risk can be a little higher. But the risks are, in my opinion, not terribly high, and even placental problems can be managed if you keep an eye on them with repeat ultrasounds.

In my own case, I'm also dealing with a damaged aortic heart valve, and just after I got pregnant this time, I found out I have an aneurysm. Having an ascending aortic aneurysm while you're pregnant is NOT a good combination. Sure, I freaked out for a day or two. Then I remembered "Oh yeah, I'm supposed to trust in God." ;-) After that, I realized that my life is in His hands, and my time will come when it was meant to come. I don't feel like that time has come yet. Maybe in a few months more, I'll feel differently. But right now, I think God is telling me I'm okay. So, no more stressing. I'm getting great care, and they're monitoring the aneurysm, and they will repair my aorta with open heart surgery sometime after the baby is born--we're still trying to figure out when. Now, recovering from a c-section AND open-heart surgery.....THAT will be hard. But I'm up for the challenge. (Please God, let them give me lots of drugs...)

As I said before, even with small risks, it really stinks if you are one of the few that experience them. I'm willing to take that risk, because of my religious beliefs and trust in God. But for others who don't have that confidence, the decision isn't as easy. I would strongly recommend researching more on your own and making an educated decision. Contact the ICAN network: the International Cesarean Awareness Network at www.ican-online.org. They can give you realistic statistics, and there are also local monthly meetings, hopefully in your area. Let me know if you decide to get pregnant again, so we can follow how you're doing!

Welcome to Russia, My Commrades...

Yes, it's official. He's president. Someone please wake me up and tell me this has been a dream. Or a nightmare, I should say....

I was afraid he had a chance of winning. But by such a landslide? Something is fishy. Did you hear about the Black Panthers standing outside Philadelphia voting locations, intimidating white voters? And nothing was done about that? Hmmm, I wonder what would have happened if it had been the Klu Klux Klan doing that. So, it's okay to intimidate white voters to prevent them from voting, or to guilt trip them into voting for someone just because that person is a minority, but not vice versa? NO ONE should be intimidated into voting or not voting for a particular person. And no one should vote for someone (or against someone) for the color of their skin--whatever color that may be.

Having a black president would be a great thing...if it were a good man with morals being elected. One who did not want to take away our rights to bear arms, to homeschool our children, or the rights of the unborn to live. Give me Alan Keys any day! Or Condoleeza Rice...or about a million other black Americans who would do a better job. Heck, I'd take Hillary at this point! (I know she's not black, but she is a huge liberal. She's just not nearly as crazy.)

I'm very much afraid that God has withheld His wrath for as long as he could, and now He has given this country just enough rope for us to hang ourselves. And unfortunately, those of us who knew what would happen and tried to avoid it are going to be punished right along with those who were naiive or had bad intentions for this country from the beginning.

Get ready my friends, and mark my words, I'm getting ready to prophesy:

Four years from now our economy will be a thousand times worse.
Four years from now, anyone who has a job will be tax at a rate of twice what they are taxed at now.
Four years from now, we will have had the freedom to homeschool greatly hampered, if it's still allowed at all.
Four years from now, we will be under martial law. There will be a domestic army populated primarily with thugs, who will abuse their power and the people of this country.
Four years from now, there will be presidential orders that essentially turn the president of the United States into a dictator.
Four years from now, parents will not have the right to refuse immunizations or any type of medical treatment that a doctor "recommends", or even the right to a second opinion.
Four years from now, public schools (and probably private schools) will be required to teach sex education and pro-homosexual ideals to our kindergarteners.
Four years from now, a child of twelve will be able to be taken across state lines by a school nurse for a late-term abortion without your consent.
Four years from now, that nurse won't actually have to cross state lines because all kinds of abortion will be available in all states, and even Catholic hospitals will be compelled to provide them.
Four years from now, crime rates will be at an all-time high.
Four years from now, you won't be able to protect yourself from criminals because your right to keep and bear arms will be severely limited, if it exists at all.
Four years from now, most small businesses will have failed, and large businesses will have taken their production out of this country because of the oppressive "spread the wealth" laws.
Four years from now, a large portion of the (working) population will be forced to work for the government because there aren't many other jobs out there.
Four years from now, our country will be divided: one race against another, one economic group against another, non-believers against believers.
Four years from now, many homeowners will have lost their property due to an inability to pay the burdensome taxes on it with the little wages they have left after income tax. The government will continue bailing out the mortgage firms, and will own a large percentage of formerly private property.
Four years from now, the government will provide public preschool...and then lower the required age for starting school down to age four.
Four years from now, there will be few stay at home moms, because few families will be able to support their families with one over-taxed income in an unstable economy.
Four years from now, that man will be re-elected.

And then things will really get bad...

Am I a prophet? Of course not. I have common sense. We have just elected a pro-violence, communist control-freak who is a text book case for narcissistic personality disorder. It has already been said by some psychiatrists that he displays some of the same personality traits as Hitler and other dictators. Everyone thought Hitler was a breath of fresh air. Everyone thought he would bring change. And he did. It just wasn't exactly the change that the Germans were expecting.

God have mercy on our poor, poor country.

Aspartame/Nutrasweet: Sweet Poison

I've known for a long time that Nutrasweet, the brand name for aspartame, was poison. I read a lot of things years ago that convinced me that it was bad. That's why for years I drank regular soda. (For health reasons...haha.) After gaining a ton of weight, and a bunch more with all my babies, I've caved in and had diet soda on and off over the years. I know it's bad, but I fall back into the habit sometimes. When I can, I choose something sweetened with Splenda/sucralose. As if that's any better! We just don't know how toxic it is YET.

Well, in case you still think fake sweeteners are a good thing, check out this movie: Sweet Misery. In it, you will see aspartame victims and doctors talk about just how bad it really is, and how it is linked with a lot of conditions, including a significant rise in brain cancer.

Also, check out the Dorway.com and Sweet Poison website, which lists 92 symptoms that aspartame users often have. Some people will have a higher tolerance than others, as can be seen in the testimonials in the video. Some may have serious symptoms after a few days of use, or others may have symptoms come on much slower, after a longer time with higher usage.

One concern is birth defects. I've been trying to avoid diet soda up until now, knowing I'm pregnant. But from now on, if my husband comes home with soda for us, I will be dumping it right in the sink. I don't care about the lost money. I care about my husband, myself, and my unborn baby.

You may be thinking "what do I do if I can't use artificial sweeteners?" Try these:

Stevia: Personally, I don't care for stevia, but some do like it. It comes in a powder or liquid. I find there's an aftertaste. But then, there is with fake sweeteners too.

Agave: Agave is supposed to be a low glycemic sweetener. It tastes wonderfully mild. It's not cheap, but it isn't bad. I buy raw agave.

Honey: Okay, honey is not low in calories or low glycemic. But it is natural, and good for you. Did you know that honey is just as effective as cold medicine? I tried it on my son, and it worked. Try a little in your tea or baking recipes. If you need to use a lot, try something else.

Sucanat: (Also known as evaporated cane juice, or Rapadura) Sucanat is basically unrefined sugar. It still has molasses in it. It kind of tastes like brown sugar. I've used it, and it's a little different, but good. You need to mix it with the liquid ingredients in a recipe first, because it takes longer to "melt" and blend in. If you don't, you'll get grainy sucanat mixed in. This is also not low glycemic or low calorie, but it's good for cakes, etc.

Yacon Syrup: Another natural food. I haven't tried this, but it's supposed to be even lower glycemic than agave. Also more expensive.

For a drink, try mixing some fresh lemon juice with ice water and agave. It's really good.

WFMW: The Toys Worth Buying Edition

I have five children. We have a lot of toys.

A LOT.

A large percentage of them are yard sale toys. Yes, we are that kind of people: we find nothing at all wrong with giving our children like-new yard sale toys. They don't know the difference. In fact, we are deliberately raising them to not care about the difference. Plus, it's easier--no wresting the toys from sobbing toddlers to unpackage, and God forbid, try to untwist or cut those evil indestructible twisty-ties!

However, we do purchase new toys. I've found myself doing this more and more (despite the increasing size of our family) just because sometimes it's fun to buy something new. Of course, it never fails that a brand new toy we spent a good chunk of money on (not crazy money, but enough) ends up tossed aside and forgotten. I can't tell you how many dolls my oldest daughter got and never used, and how many scratched-up little plastic animal figures she begged for at yard sales and has loved literally to death--until the tails and heads fell off! I even bought some price (to me) Schleich animals. She does play with some, but some go unused, while the yard-sale doggies are her treasures.

So here is my list of toys that my kids DO love. I can't guarantee that yours will love them, but mine do...

Mattel Matchbox Mega Rig Shark Ship Set

Purchased new at Walmart on clearance, and then marked down extra by the clerk because I told her it was on a clearance display where everything was supposed to be $11 (which it was), this was a steal of a deal. I guess it's supposed to be some kind of shark research vessel. It comes with a shark cage, a crane for hoisting it, little side boats, two little guys (I think there should have been more) that can be eaten by the shark and then fished out of its stomach (how cool is that to a little boy?), a harpoon, detachable wheels, and tons of other stuff.

The best thing about this set is not only that it floats, but that the three dark blue sections you see detach from the main ship, to form other types of vehicles and mini-ships. EVERYTHING on this set interconnects with each other, so that if you take the ship apart, you can create new things with the pieces. It's great, because when my 6 year old son got bored with the whole big ship, he broke off parts to share with his siblings, and they all got to play together. The bad part? There are pieces of this ship all over the house. Did I mention retail price of this is $50? Now, I would never ever pay $50 for something like this, but if I had the money to spend, it would definitely be worth it. But it's way more worth it when you pay $11 for it! Heh heh heh!!

Amazon lists it at $33, and I think that it's worth that much, for sure. I don't see any boy not loving this. It's also pretty rugged. I don't think anything is broken on it yet.


Playmobil Chariot

The one we have is somewhat similar to the one pictured, but with gold and red colors, and darker horses (only two, not four). It's probably an older set. I got it at a garage sale, in a brand new sealed box, never opened or used, for $2. I got another set of a horse and some viking-looking guys for the same price. A great deal, considering they go for $17 new, and you don't tend to find them used on craigslist often.

The two sets have neat accessories, like helmets, swords, an axe, and a mace. I've always wanted to get Playmobil stuff, but it is soooo expensive. I was surprised at the detail in these sets, and that they are not as flimsy as one might expect. We've had them over a week, and the only casualty was one poor viking whose leg snapped off when my son stepped on him (lesson learned, take better care of your toys). He is still enjoying playing with these every morning. While I don't think it's as big a hit as the shark ship, it's a winner? Will I get more Playmobil stuff? Sure, if it's used. The new prices are still too high for me.

The N-Strike Recon CS-6 Nerf Gun

This blaster gun comes apart in a few pieces, too, and are somewhat interchangeable. You can convert it from a longer rifle to a shorter gun. My six year old son loves this gun so much. He plays with it as much as the shark ship. He loves to take it outside. He'd take it in the bathtub if we'd let him! Of course, the nerf darts are all gone, either lost or chewed by toddlers. We may buy him a pack of new ones for Christmas, but if those disappear, we're done. He doesn't care though, he uses it all the time without them. He's all about soldier-type stuff!

My one complaint, aside from the darts, would be the sight. It's never worked properly, doesn't go on or stay on well. We probably should have returned the gun for a new one with a better sight, but we forgot. It's lost now, and if I ever find it, I'll probably throw it away. (Don't tell my son, lol.) Other than the sight and the darts, it has held up well for over seven months, and functions just fine. We got it new at Walmart. Don't know the price, my husband bought it.

You'll notice the toys I've mentioned are all boys' toys. That's because my oldest daughter, as I mentioned, has a passion for used doggies on their last legs, and my youngest daughter loves nothing but dolls...the oldest and most decrepit hand-me-down dolls you can find. If we didn't love her so much, we'd sneak them away and toss them. But we do, so we don't. *sigh* They really are ugly. But on the bright side, my daughters love yard sales, just like their mom! My middle son never seems excited about any toy we give him. I'm not sure if it's his personality, or if we just never hit on the right toy. And of course, my one year old boy likes anything the big kids like...although he does seem enthralled with the nerf gun. It's as tall as him, and he loves to walk around banging it on the floor, like some kind of pogo stick or jack hammer! **Please note, in researching this toy, I found a recall notice on it...parents who bought this up to August 2008 should contact Hasbro for an extra piece that will prevent the toy from possible pinching skin--although in trying it myself, I could not get the toy to pinch my skin no matter what I did. But get the safety piece anyway.**

So, those three boys' toys are the ones that work for me!

Margaret Sanger: Racist and Eugenics Advocate

I found an interview with Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, posted online. It was done by Mike Wallace back in 1957. It is somewhat long, but the most interesting parts start halfway through the video.

My first impression of her was that she appeared to be an unpleasant woman. She didn't strike me as the type of person to laugh or joke around, unless it was with sarcasm or at the expense of another person or group (that's just my opinion based on her expressions and demeanor). She was much older in this interview, I'd guess late sixties, and much less pleasant looking than any pictures of her posted on feminist websites. I've met many older women who had a bitter, dour expression all the time, and saw very little good in the world. This woman looked worse than all of them.

She clearly became uncomfortable and/or irritated whenever the subject of her upbringing or the Catholic Church was brought up. She said that it was never her goal to use the subject of birth control to fight against the Catholic Church, and yet it was quite obvious that she harbored a lot of bitterness toward the Church.

Mrs. Sanger also gave the impression of someone who lies and/or skirts around the truth whenever she thinks it is to her benefit. The reporter tried to get her to respond to several questions about what she thought of certain Catholic beliefs, and she refused to answer several times. She also claimed that certain quotes that the reporter read to her, of her own statements (either in previous press reports, or to his fellow reporters in pre-interviews) were exaggerations or fabrications. For example, when asked if she believed Catholics should have the right to protest the government using their tax dollars to fund something they believed was evil, Mrs. Sanger said that she did think they should have the right to speak their opinion, but so should people like her. When Mr. Wallace quoted her as having told his associate that she thought it should be made illegal for anyone to oppose such things (birth control and abortion), and even make it illegal for churches to prohibit their own church members from such acts, she denied ever saying that.

Basically, anytime he quoted a statement of hers that showed her outright disdain for Catholics, she denied it. She clearly wanted to come off as some kind of humanitarian, rather than what she really was--a racist, anti-religious, angry woman who believed that the solution to society's problems were to use birth control, sterilization, and abortion to prevent black women, poor women, and Catholics from reproducing. (Black women were not mentioned during the interview, but you will read sources below that mention the subject).

The most telling statement she made was in response to Mike Wallace's question of whether she believed in sin or not. She wouldn't answer his question directly, even when he repeated it. But she did say that she believed the worst sin was to have children...then after a pause, she quickly covered that statement by saying it was having children who are sick or poor, etc. etc. to have a decent life. When asked if she thought murder was a sin, she mumbled something about "whether murder is a sin or not, it's a terrible act". She sounded reluctant to actually say murder is a sin...or to admit that she didn't think it was a sin. Oh, but having children? DEFINITELY the WORST sin.

Wait...WHAT?! I'm sorry, she thought having children is the greatest sin, but murder...maybe not so much? No wonder she advocated abortion for "undesirables"...since she didn't think murder was a sin, but giving birth when you are poor is!

Most people don't know that Margaret Sanger was an early advocate for eugenics. In Margaret Sanger: Father of modern society by Elasah Drogin, is one source for such information. Also, in Margaret Sanger's own Birth Control Review, founded by her in 1917, she published many articles on eugenics, such as "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920), "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "The purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924), "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925), "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928), and many others.

What is eugenics? Wikipedia lists eugenics as a "social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention". Sounds almost pleasant, even sensible, doesn't it? What is the reality of eugenics? Read up on Hitler, and you'll have a good idea. Generally, eugenics supporters decide which group or groups of people are worthy to live, and which are not...and work towards the elimination of the "unfit". For Hitler, those who were not fit to live included Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, etc. For Margaret Sanger, it was Catholics, Blacks, and the poor. Hitler used concentration camps and gas chambers. Margaret Sanger advocated birth control and abortion. And her methods and propaganda have been very successful.

On blackgenocide.com, they call abortion the "greatest deception that has plagued the black church since Lucifer himself." The website has many links regarding this massive genocide that has been perpetrated on the black community. I particularly recommend Margaret Sanger's EUGENIC Plan for Black Americans , The Truth About Margaret Sanger, Abortion and the Black Community (which includes statistics and a very interesting chart on causes of death for African Americans) and their link to ObamaNation (check it out before you vote today!) for their opinion on what a Barack Obama presidency would mean for African-Americans.Here are some statistics listed on their main page:

-Between 1882 and 1968, 3446 Blacks were lynched in the U.S. That number is surpassed in 3 days by abortion.

-1,452 African-American children are killed each day by the heinous act of abortion.

-3 out of 5 African-American women will abort their child.

-Since 1973 their have been over 13 million Black children killed and their precious mothers victimized by the U.S. abortion industry.

-With 1/3 of all abortions performed on Black women, the abortion industry has received over 4,000,000,000 (yes, billion) from the Black community.



Margaret Sanger's prejudice and racism was evident in this quote from page 47 of "What Every Girl Should Know", which Sanger published in 1920:

"It is said that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets."

Wow. Can't really refute the racism in that quote, can you? That doesn't just reflect the ideas of the time...that is so twisted, it's absurd.

So when you think of Planned Parenthood, think of Margaret Sanger and what she stood for. Modern Planned Parenthood supporters may try to discredit any claims of Sanger's racism, or disavow themselves of any of her advocacy of eugenics, but the fact remains: they've carried out her plans to the letter, and succeeded very well in eliminating many of the children that Sanger would have deemed "unfit".

And remember, if you donate any money to them, use their clinics, or donate to United Way (a big supporter of Planned Parenthood and other bad "charities"), you are paying for the murders of not only millions of innocent children, but also a disproportionate number of African American children. Although no life is more (or less) valuable than another, the fact that one segment of society seems to be targeted more than another makes the tragedy of abortion all the more tragic.