I can't imagine not being anywhere there aren't major drugs and a staff of medical personal to deal with my hollering. In other words, should I ever deliver a baby, it sho'nuff will be in a cold, sterile hospital. But some women like the intimacy of home, surrounded by the family and so forth. Hmm. What say you, do you think a baby is better off being born at home, in the hospital, or does it really not matter?

Hospital birth for certain. Don't understand why some women wanna have baby's at home in their bathtub. You should go somewhere that has equipment and where the atmosphere is prepared for it should something goes wrong during the delivery.

Funny you bring this up, I was going to make a similar post.


I was born in a hospital but if I was ever pregnant, I'd want to deliver at home. Think about it, in a hospital, they can change the bedsheets and spray all the Lysol they want but there are still millions of different kinds of germs from all the sick people there, far more than there would be at your home. Also, there are often stories of women who are not treated well by the doctors, their bedside manner is cold, impersonal, and the women are sometimes treated like they're wasting the doctor's time coming in to have a baby.

In Patch Adams' book, Gesundheit, he tells of all the births he witnessed in a hospital, none of the women there were able to do it comfortably, they were all miserable, they WERE in a cold, sterile environment, and in comparison, he had been present for many home births, and there, the women were comfortable, they were in a familiar setting, they were surrounded by family who treated them like a person, etc.

Besides, a delivery at the hospital can run into the tens of thousands of dollars just for the privilege of it, insurance or no insurance, they wouldn't be getting that money out of me just for an uncomfortable bed and useless nurses while nature takes its course and any midwife could do the work of the good, overpaid physician,

Don't understand why anybody wouldn't wanna have a baby in a hospital but whatever. Guess its up to them.

I think I mentioned this someplace else but there were unexpected complications with my daughter's birth so I'm very glad we were in a hospital.

I guess hospital only cause they are better equipped to deal with complications.

Definetly hospital to make sure Mom and baby are o.k. and no complications from the birth.

It's irresponsible to deliberately deliver a baby outside of a hospital....too many things can go wrong during delivery.

Marc™ wrote:

It's irresponsible to deliberately deliver a baby outside of a hospital....too many things can go wrong during delivery.

It's not irresponsible, at home you can have a trained midwife and the paramedics standing by. People seem to forget that's how mankind came into this world for thousands of years and can note it hasn't killed off the entire human race. Besides, 95% of all babies arrive OFF schedule, is the mother just supposed to take up room and board in the hospital for two months before delivery just to guarantee she's there when the baby's ready?

Marc™ wrote:

It's irresponsible to deliberately deliver a baby outside of a hospital....too many things can go wrong during delivery.

Like your cabbie not knowing how to tie off and cut an umbilicus?

Kral wrote:

Whatever makes the mother comfortable, I guess. Personally though I wouldn't wanna have a baby anywhere except for in a hospital where there are doctors (and morphine).

I think it pretty much comes down to what makes the Mom happy, though I think a hospital is the best choice because you're in a place that has absolutely everything in case something goes wrong. If I have a child, it will be in a hospital - I want them to load me up on as many drugs as possible!

A friend of mine had both of her boys at home and it was fine, though she said if she'd had risky pregnancies, she would have gone to the hospital. She had a midwife who supported her throughout the pregnancy, and afterwards. I've had other friends, and friends of friends, who've opted for home births, too. It depend son the woman, and all of these women would have gone to the hospital if there were complications, but some opted for the home birth given the higher risk of infection at the hospital and some felt it was a more comfortable option. Had another friend opt for a home birth for baby #3 after her twins were born, as the hospital was so filthy. She said as soon as she could get her twins out of there, she did. The hospital later got in trouble due to consideration, but she said she didn't care - she wasn't giving birth there again.

I would only ever have a baby in a hospital. But some people put a lot of faith in home births, and that is cool too as long as they have a solid plan for any complications.

Yeah - it's not for everyone, but for some people, it works. I know I'd prefer a hospital birth, but it would also depend on where I lived and what was available.

I vote hospitals all the way, but I am a big fan of 1. modern technology 2. not having afterbirth in my home. There had to have been a reason for such an early delivery. I would ask more questions or get a better doctor. My wife had to have a crash c-sec with our son. His heart stopped. Had we not been in a hospital that day, we may not have made it. It took several doctors and nurses to get my son out quickly.

I think a hospital is the better place just due to the possibility of complications. But I do like how some hospitals are making a more homelike setting an option. It looks like a bedroom but should something go horribly wrong, everything the mother & child could need is available to them.

RobbieFTW wrote:

Don't understand why anybody wouldn't wanna have a baby in a hospital but whatever. Guess its up to them.

If you watch One Life To live you would understand why no one would want to have a baby in a hospial!! LOL!

Seriously I think the hospital is better this way if anything goes wrong you have a full medical staff there to deal with it.

My kids were all born in a hospital. The sitting in a bathtub of water labor thing sounds ridiculous to me.

My boys were both born in hospitals but if I could do it all over again I'd try for a home birth. I truly believe that hospitals and doctors cause as many birth complications as they prevent. Does anybody here believe for one second that 1/3 of American women are unable to deliver babies without surgery? The c-section rate is staggering. My birth experience with my oldest was horrible and traumatic and I regret that we both had to suffer the way we did.

Also, I personally know eleven children from four different families who were born at home...including a 10-lb newborn who came out of a 5'2" mama with no tearing and no cutting. A patient midwife can make all the difference; most midwives aren't trying to make a tee time.

2xy wrote:

A patient midwife can make all the difference; most midwives aren't trying to make a tee time.

That is true, when was the last time you heard of a midwife who treated you like an inconvenience for going into labor? But you hear plenty about doctors who act like their patients are wasting their time by coming to them for help when they're sick/hurt. In fact, I would've been a regular birth but my mother's attending doctor said he didn't get paid for those, so he gave her a C-section and about killed her because he had literally no idea what the hell he was doing.

http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20110520/home-births-on-the-rise-in-the-us?src=RSS_PUBLIC

The article is a bit long, but the gist of it is that home births are on the rise, while it's being debated as to whether or not it should be.