Should dependents be given the choice. . .?

When you are dependent on others for your life, that is called being a parasite. Technically then, a baby is even a parasite!

Obviously a parasite like a worm in our gut is treated differently then the dependent like a baby in the womb, but I am going somewhere with this, so hear me out. My last post was talking of those who were abnormal and unhealthy physically, and concluded with "If you can accept you are defective, unhealthy or otherwise not acceptable to society in general, and are still happy to be alive, you are in the best place. Everyone (as long as they are not dependent on others for their own life) has the right to love, live and reproduce." . .but is it best to reproduce?

Should the individual be expected to be mentally or physically mature or a certain age before they are deemed independent and given the choice to reproduce?

In the case of a dependent baby in the womb, society has deemed that it is the mothers choice of not just whether that child will reproduce, but whether they will even live! As a person has the right to chose whether they will support or kill a parasite, an unwanted baby is likewise a parasite that has no ability to live on their own, and thus has no right to a say in the matter of whether or not they live or die.

On another level, but to do with the same question: we say that a 13 year old teenage girl should not have the choice of whether or not she can love, or at least live with the 21 year old guy who just impregnated her, and that seems logical, as she is not a legal and responsible adult yet. Should a young teen under legal age be able to carry, deliver and keep a baby, or should her and her parent's first concern be with growing the teen?



If a proper full grown size is the only issue, then should a midget be able to have babies? Is it even healthy for them to have such a large bump in them?


I think it should be the choice of the midget, as they can and do have some normal children, and they should be able to make wise choices. . .if they have come to the end of their grieving stages, as I spoke of in my post: Abnormalities of the body and the connected grief stages.

Wouldn't you think whether or not a person has the right to bring a baby into the world has more to do with the ability to support yourself, and thus they are ready to support another?  While logically it should be the parent's choice about whether or not to abort the baby of a dependent 13 year old, on the other hand midgets, being thinking  and independent adults, are rarely told they couldn't have kids. (Even if it's not best for the mother, child or humanity if they do have kids that carry on the defective genes, bringing with it many health issues.)

What about the Down syndrome girl?


As sweet as people with Down's are, from what I have been told, most if not all of those with Down syndrome will never live completely independent of their caregiver, yet they are somewhat sexual. Though greatly childlike and half of them being infertile anyways, at least half of all women with Down syndrome do ovulate and are fertile. Numerous experts in physical and sexual abuse acknowledge that the mentally disabled individual is particularly vulnerable to sexual exploitation and abuse. Studies indicate that half of the mildly disabled Adults with Down's were sexually active. . . and one out of 3 were raped or a victim of incest. They do not have healthy or normal marriages, and are always highly supervised by family members, even when they marry a "normal" person. (As abuse is so common.)
Source

If and when the Down syndrome woman gets pregnant by marriage, incest or rape, between 35 and 50 percent of their children will have trisomy 21 or other developmental disabilities. Offspring without Down syndrome have an overall much greater than average number of congenital anomalies. (This chance is even higher where both parents have Down's syndrome. . .which is very rare and "troubling" to experts.) There is also a high chance that pregnancy would end in miscarriage. Women with Down's syndrome are also more likely than other women to have a premature baby, or to need a caesarian section, as they can't communicate their needs or take care of themselves in pregnancy. As they are dependent themselves, the studies show that they make clueless and neglectful parents, even if not intentionally abusive.


Considering all this, should the Down syndrome girl be told by her parents or a caregiver that she needs to get an abortion if she gets pregnant, and/or be told to get sterilized or have an IUD implanted to prevent pregnancy in the first place? Would it be more cruel to control her fertility (or strongly suggest she do it herself), or not to control it!?  

Should those who are 

1. dependent on a mother's body (fetus), 
2. dependent on their family (handicapped or teenagers with no money) 
3. or those otherwise completely dependent on others for their life and care. . .

 Even be allowed to procreate without permission from their caregiver? Do they even get a vote, as they are no different then a dependent child or a baby in the womb?

To put it another way, think of a pet who is dependent on you. Do they have the right to bring home a bunch of their stray friends for you to feed and care for? Out of mercy and kindness we may let them take advantage of us, because it feels good to be needed. . . but they do not have the right.

 I have at one time adopted 5 such abandoned large dogs when we were in the country. What happened next to them though? As we couldn't contain them, some started getting shot at. Traveling around together, the pack attracted the neighbor dogs to join, and then the dominant one got a neighbor's dog pregnant. The purebred dog then had such ugly mutts that no one wanted them. In the end few lived, and their lives were bad after we left the neighborhood.



So then one could ask, "Is it more cruel to spay or neuter the ugly mutt or a diseased or starving stray, or not to?" I think most people would admit that the average mutt should not be allowed to take over and populate the world, and only the purest, healthiest or wanted ones should not be fixed. (Sadly I did not have the money to do this for the dogs we adopted, and we should have, or taken then to a pound.) That is more humane in the end!

Some would go so far as to say that many stray dogs (like these ones to the left), would be better off being "put out of their misery". Do we shoot the horse that is in pain and suffering and call it humane? Why do we refuse to do the same for many dogs now, much less humans? We call euthanasia a bad thing, but when it involves animals we generally call it mercy. . .

Whatever the case, if an animal or human offspring doesn't have a good chance of being healthy, wanted or cared for, and is dependent on someone else, it seems to me that at very least, "fixing" the mother would be the merciful thing both for the mother, and for the miserable and dependent future generations.

One could make the argument that like with the dependent pets, it is only for the benefit of those defective and undesirables and their future generations that we would want to control their fertility, but while that sounds very altruistic and kind, there is no denying the more sinister side of the coin. . .

The side of the stressed out caregivers, the poor families, overtaxed middle class and bankrupt governments of the world. . .who probably all probably know that constant catering to and supporting the weak will eventually bring down the health or welfare of the caregivers or the whole group/country! Sadly, in the end, our pity and compassion for the weak, and dependents of the world is unsustainable if there are too many dependents. We are told by the Democrats to feel bad if we can't give charity to the vets, fatherless families, immigrants and poor. They push for extended medicare, housing programs, foodstamps, heating and cooling help, welfare, WIC, unemployment or retirement benefits, and even foreign aide, etc. as if our country is made out of money!

Because of our love of "diversity", our compassion and our generosity towards the underdogs of the world, the dependent, defective and vulnerable population has turned into a dependent or "parasite" problem for those having to support them. . .in the end giving the better treatment to the takers then the givers.


The tax payers are basically being told "Work hard to support those who can't or won't help themselves. . .whether or not you want to, or can afford it."



While it is obvious that the media and the mainstream (even the Republicans!) have feared the topic of controlling fertility as eugenics, as I stated earlier, it really is more humane. Similarly like pets, I think that all woman should be put on birth control unless they prove healthy, independent and mentally ready to parent. . .as they would have to show when going to adopt. This would both protect the individuals and the future generations from starvation, pain, constant abortions or being unwanted. . . simply by mandating birth control for all. 

Stopping the cycle of dependents in the world, just as we have always done with young teens by abortions and fixing pets, would be wise for our survival and our welfare as a nation and world. Those who are dependent themselves, will breed dependent and/or defective children who in the end will likely have no one to support them, so they will be on the street like a stray dog. That is cruel to all involved.

Are there others though who like the fetuses, teen and the handicapped (mentally or physically), are incapable parents, and are completely dependent on family (or often the government) for their very lives? 

Who are basically, much as I hate to say it. . . the "parasites" of our world? This question and more I will explore in my next post: The parasites of dying civilizations.

Can an Atheist believe in eternal life for the body or spirit? You bet!

 According to research on cells, even from a long time ago, some cells renew themselves indefinitely!

This was shown in experiments with cells from rabbits being isolated and a nutrient solution added and changed everyday for many years. Only when the solution was not changed were these cells aging from taking in their own wastes. With a very short time of this toxification, the cells died.

Whether the cells could have died that quickly from lack of food, versus the toxification is yet to be confirmed, but the hypothesis of the scientists running the experiment was that it was overloading the cells with their own waste that killed them. So their belief was that not helping the human body detox of what we put in our bodies and because of what is in our environment, that may be what's killing us. (Or we would possibly be eternal!)

As a matter of fact only one woman's cells have been the standard for testing for a long time. The cells have self replicated without dying so many times over, that if put together, it is estimated that they would weigh about 50 million metric tons, which is about as much as 100 Empire State Buildings! They called her "the woman with immortal cells". Sadly, they were apparently not detoxing properly in her body (like they were in the test tubes that were changed daily) as she died young of cancer.
Source
Source

So, you are basically being a martyr to your choices and circumstances being in the body and time you are in, whether you like it or not. What are these choices and circumstances you might ask? I'm sure I don't know them all, but I have discussed some both obvious toxins we need to detox from (like junk food, pesticides and herbicides or radiation) and not so obvious ones. (Like fluoride, vaccinations, whole grains that are not processed, dyes in food, many oils, chemicals in our body products, furniture and even clothes!)

Come with my imagination though to a time when all they had was good food and a clean environment. What killed those people? Or did they live long lives? Strangely, we tend to associate the past with shorter lives, not longer. . .why would that be? There could be a few explanations for that: they were all dying in wars, famines or natural disasters.

What about before religion, which spurned most of the wars? (I believe there was such a time.) That would leave mostly only natural things to kill them off. . . So when was there no war? Quote:
"What is interesting about Ancient Egypt is the fact that it's time line ran between 3150 BC an 31 BC but the Ancient Egyptian wars did not occur until half way through their existence."

"While it is known that the early Ancient Egyptians did send out raiding parties to nearby countries for the looting of precious metals, animals and people to keep as slaves.[or was it a tribute paid to them as gods over them?] These did not turn into full blown wars."

This lack of equality is I believe because the ancient Pharaohs/gods were the presumed masters. The Egyptian pharaohs/gods I believe were actually the half children of the Ancient astronauts/aliens that the world's religions all sprang from. (More on this in my series on them starting here.) The Egyptians of that time believed that pharaohs were go-between people (to the gods) that were half-man and half-god.
Source

This race of dark skinned people, the Nubians (who were manufactured to be slaves according to the ancient texts of the Sumerians) apparently had no technology, and no writing until much later. . . when they adopted their culture, writing and other things from the Egyptians, Also later they apparently started interbreeding with them, but as is typical in history, we can trace the breeding to be completely one sided. In other words, the slave masters did as the Bible described in Genesis 6.  "When the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” The same thing happens with any slave race, the woman are "taken", likely against their will.


 It was said in the ancient Sumerian texts that the slave race of these "gods" was simply created to dig for gold and precious metals. . .which was to be brought back to their planet to grind up and repair their atmosphere. It was said to be a planet with a lot of gold on it, and for this reason, the people from there also evolved to shine. (As referenced to a lot in the Bible as well.) Ironically, the name "Nubia" or "Nubian" is thought may originate with an ancient Egyptian noun, nebu, meaning "gold".


Back to the lack of wars though: The wars that eventually did happen were for he purposes of dominating and controlling the neighboring races of the [slave] Hittites and Cannanites who eventually rebelled. Which I suspect was the cause of all "war" until they disappeared and left their children in charge to squabble about history, eventually changing it enough to make it into a religion. As humans are still prone to do even today.
Source
Source

Anyhow, at this time before war, the physical body could theoretically live forever, or at least a very long time. In the time before the Bible was written down, the belief in the gods was recent history that everyone knew, because the chosen ones actually walked with the gods! Adam, Eve and Enoch were said to walk and talk with "God" in the Bible (Which was actually plural "gods"). The book of Enoch goes into much greater detail of what most would call an alien abduction today.

 If we take the genealogies and stories seriously, these men in the Bible lived many hundreds of years before the flood! It is often theorized by Christians that the reason it seemed to change was more exposure to the sun with a much lessened atmosphere/"canopy of water". The real question: Is there any evidence of these stories being true? Were old men found in these areas, at that time? Actually yes!

Did you know that like how reptiles continue to grow throughout their lives, we have a few things that grow the longer we age too? We have a brow bone that protrudes and a jaw that grow longer, Do you know what they speculate that a very old face would start to look like? An ape. Could this be the confusion between our ancestry? It is understandable, but when there is only a slight look of an ape in the face, yet with all the even superior technology we know they had, the uprightness they stood with, the language ability we now know they had, and most importantly a blood type (RH-) not found in any primate (much less on this planet!), it seems that people should recheck their presumptions about the origins of humans.

So not only do at least some people's cells have the possibility of being eternal, we also have sculls showing that our ancestors did live around 800 to 100 years old, according to projections based on how fast those bones grow in humans now.

What about the "spirit" that people associate with "God"?
" The Ancient Egyptians believed that the pharaoh's spirit [the part of them that was said to be "God"] could live for an eternity, which means forever. They believed that the pharaoh would become [only] a god after he died, so pharaohs were buried in a tomb with many treasures which could be enjoyed in their Afterlife." (Mind you, as spirits are not known to need abstinence or generally be able to move things, not surprisingly the tombs when opened did not looked touched.)

Socrates said that "the actual practice of learning to leave the physical body and live in the spiritual body. . . is called "dying."

Egyptians did not call their ruler a "pharaoh" before 1554 BC during the 18th dynasty. Before that, pharaoh meant "Great House" in Egyptian and referred to the palace of the king.

Could this be what later evolved to be the belief that the spirit of "god" dwells within God's children?  The body is known as God's "temple" in the Bible, which could also be translated as "great house". So is the human body just a vessel for the alien spirit? When the vessel dies, the spirit of "god" being much longer living (even believed to be eternal) would then live on. . . possibly passing on to another "temple" or "vessel". . . possibly not. The spirit would then just be in a state of waiting to move on. 

Considering there is a lot of evidence for reincarnation, and ghosts living loose among us, this seems very likely to be the case. It's my theory for now anyhow. Besides, if life after death is as good as we're told by the religious, why do ghosts remain here and for what purpose?

 It's not the only link with my theory though: we also have the "witness of the Spirit" spoken of in the Bible. This is that feeling we get that we know a person, even though we have hardly met. Is the ancient alien/"god" part of us, reincarnated in it's eternal "cells", communicating with itself divided and living within humans! (Some people, possibly because of their bloodline as "Children of God" being a bigger draw to the alien spirit. . .I don't know, but kind of spooky!) 

We may have a god parasite!
Source
Source
How might this "spirit" of the larger "gods" (literally translated "tall men") manifest in our smaller human bodies? Ever heard of our energy fields? Some people have larger ones, and some smaller, but all extend out from the body. This is a fascinating new science that use to be only in the realm of the mystical "quacks" but is gaining legitimacy, being talked of and researched by scientists more and more. A scientist and well renoun author was recently talking on the Opera show with Dr. Oz about energy medicine and this field around and in the body, from a scientific basis.
Source

Historically, this is a well known and practiced medicine who's basis is in the "spiritual" part of the body. There are skeptics of course, most of which will deny even the existence of this inner force, and yet anyone who is honest can see and feel the effects of this force. When you walk into a dark room, can you feel a presence in the room at times? How about when someone stands too close to you in a crowd? You may feel they are touching you although they are not, you may feel uncomfortable or anxious although there is no threat, you may even feel emotions that aren't your own - all of these feelings are due to your energy which comes out a little way from your physical body coming into contact with the other person. It's not as odd as it sounds.

When someone is close that you don't like, can you feel the negative energy? When someone is a needy, self centered or manipulative person, do you feel a suction of your energy force being around them? When someone is even looking at you (focusing their energy in your direction) do you feel their eyes on you even before you look at them? Depending on your sensitivity, and how big your and their energy field is, this can be felt nearer or further away.

How do we know the human energy field really exists besides intuition or imagination?

"Knowledge of the human energy field comes from ancient texts [like the Sumerian text, which literature has things like knowledge of the planets that was not known by common man for many thousands of years after.] and metaphysical literature, as well as what is observed through “high sense perception”. High sense perception is a term coined by Barbara Brennan to refer to the phenomena of “clairvoyance” — the ability to see that which lies beyond the reach of physical sight. The human energy field can be perceived in a number of different ways by use of what could be considered to be more subtle aspects of the 5 senses. Clairvoyance or “subtle sight” is only one way. People who are sensitive to the energy field may also hear it (clairaudience), sense it kinesthetically (clairsentience) or even have experiences of subtle smell and taste. Different people sense it in different ways, although some feel that everyone is capable of developing all types of subtle sense perception." 

Source

People can be stingy with their energy, as they have found it regularly drained from them. These are people, like me, that don't like hugs. Even the quiet presence of someone is a distraction to me, and I find I must be alone to give focus of my energy to anything fully. Some people I believe are more likely to be like this if they have a large energy field (which I have been told I do) because they get the effects of energy draining people from a further distance away. . .which causes it to happen more often. 

This larger energy field is evidenced in a large "personal space", and not liking physical touch, unless intentionally to heal. (Like a massage.) Perception is as good as intention here it seems to me, as those who you perceive don't like you, cannot heal you, nor can those who don't like you, pass on healing energy to you. 

Thoughts that are healing can actually be passed as energy from a distance, and thus the justification of prayer, which with intense "intention," thought, or "good vibes" can actually cause a reaction from a far. (Most times it has as much effect as praying to a horseshoe though, as the prayer is selfish or insincere.)

"Thoughts and actions can have severe consequences on our health, not just our own but those we direct our thoughts at." This is why doctors are confounded with miraculous healings. There is no denying the fact that how we think can change our health, but it is sketchy how this works on others, as we often don't even know who is sending good vibes our way. 

 Communication from this spirit of others is generally felt with an inner 'knowing' or thought popping in to your head, they may appear in dreams or provide a 'sign' relating to the information they want to impart. They may simply want to let people know they are near, safe and well and are felt by a cold shiver or goose bumps, or a breeze. These can be called ghosts, the spirit of God, or what have you, but we are talking of the paranormal here, and I think it's the alien spirit/parasite. 

Source

Whether for the good or bad though, this spirit is longer lasting then our bodies, and when we die our "energy field" leaves the body. When exactly does it enter into the next one? 

It is said by those who can see this energy field that the fetus while in the womb of the mother has no spirit. The spirit does goes in and out of the fetus, as if checking it out though, until it is born. As soon as the shoulders are out of the canal, a weak aura starts to appear. (Could this explain the light at the end of the tunnel that people see as they are dying?) 

The spirit has now to stay within the confines of the body after it is born. They say that depending on how content and willing the spirit is to reincarnate into that body, the child will live or die. This may correlate to the high rate of infant mortality (SIDS) in the first few months.

Source

So to recap:

• Cells could theoretically live forever if treated right.
• Our bodies in the past, before wars, have apparently, based on bone growth and the projection of time, lived as long as the Bible claims they did before the flood.
• The ancients believed in their leaders being gods.
• Later in the history, the children of the gods were believed to be having a "spirit of the gods" within that was released upon death. 
• By the 18th Dynasty the "gods" seemed to have left, and the name "pharaoh" came about, along with the belief in them being half god.half man.
• Pharaoh is translated "Great house", a similar concept to that in the Bible of God dwelling within the person who was his child. 
• This spirit or energy field within is larger, like the "tall men" or "gods" and seems to divide and reincarnate, just like cells.
• This spirit can be called energy, or our "force", "the witness of the spirit" or our "personal space".
• This spirit or energy is healing to the physical body if shared around physically or even mentally it seems.
• This spirit or energy leaves us when we die.
• The spirit or energy goes into a baby as it is being born. . .thus the light at the end of the tunnel.

And the process starts all over again. I believe that would be the definition of living forever. So the kingdom of heaven is within us, as Jesus said. We will be eternally living through people in the future as he is living in us now. Yes Jesus is basically "in my heart." So this is Fascinating stuff, "EH?" Does that make me a Christian all over again?! 

How to Avoid Most pregnancy, Birth & Baby Problems.

How to Avoid Most pregnancy, Birth & Baby Problems  
1. Stay away from people and places that stress you out. Pain is a function of tension, particularly during childbirth. Doctors, Midwives, friends and even family can complicate delivery by closing the birth canal by up to 30%. 

2. Avoid drugs of all kinds. Alcohol, cigarettes, caffeine and all but the most essential medications should be avoided completely, as they inevitably have side effects. This includes while nursing. . .as I got into in my post called :Prednisone- our story made public.

 3. Plan to breastfeed no matter what! Make a point to read the latest volume of THE WOMANLY ART OF BREASTFEEDING before the birth of your first child. It is put out by the La Leche League. Also make it a point to go to as many meetings as you can of your towns local chapter's LLL meetings. Robert Mendelssohn, M.D.,author of MALEpractice says "The only women who cannot breastfeed are those who have had bilateral radical mastectomies...or those who go to pediatricians." Support for childraising and nursing coming from lactation consultants or LLL leaders is way superior to that coming from Pediatricians BTW. (The latter of which I see rare use for personally.)

 4. Don't get pregnant too early or late. It is best to be pregnant when you are an adult. Better not to be an old woman, nor a girl. Risks to mother and child are greatly increased among very young and very old mothers. Also, if you are older but have already had numerous pregnancies and babies, you will have more healthy eggs longer. (Just think of all the periods you didn't have wasting your good eggs!) 
5. And speaking of timing, have a healthy space in between your children. Historically that has been a minimum of 2 years before you get pregnant. (Preferably 3 though.) Depending on how pregnancy goes, that insures enough time with the first in a crucial stage of life (presuming you are with them) and consequently no jealousy or rivalry about the new intruder. . .as well as your calcium and iron stores to be rebuilt.

 6. This is a tough order, but try to put your spouse FIRST so you will not harm your baby with the stress of a break up or emotional arguments.

 7. Go for massages and chiropractic adjustments regularly.(In my experience, the good masseuse is worth more to your health and a better bang for your buck for both preventative and not then the chiropractor. . .but should be able to tell you if the other is needed.)

 8. Take wild yam progesterone cream if you don't want miscarriages, PMS, stretch marks or baby blues. This is a wonder cream, and I have personally had it work for infertility caused from stress twice! (As stress causes a depletion in progesterone.)
 9. Eat whole foods to hunger, and very moderate amounts of anything processed. (Like canned stuff, or pre packaged stuff with more then a few ingredients.) Most pregnancy issues and defects of baby can be traced to a poor diet, which is evidenced by a fat malnourished body. Those very overweight people who start eating a good diet in pregnancy often instead of gaining weight, they actually loose it!
 10. Supplement with good stuff like kelp, herbal teas, whole salts, green drinks, Floradix iron and herbs liquid iron supplement, blackstrap molasses, and krill oil as often as your symptoms say you need or can afford, instead of the synthetic prenatals. If you want to take herbs, try to take them individually, so you can tell what works for one thing. Herbalists now say they probably work best if not combined.
11. Don't over exercise! Those who do, often have low birth weight or early babies.  Most often unless it's just because those woman are not from European descent, those woman with small or early babies are very thin and are habitual joggers or the like. They often cannot carry the baby to term if they do manage to get pregnant at all.
12. Avoid putting any foreign and unnatural substance into or on you, or your child's system or skin. This includes drugs, vaccines, soaps, lotions, ointments, herbicides and pesticides. Read up on everything, and don't trust studies that are backed by the very people who put out the junk, they are WRONG! Use natural methods and preventative instead, and avoid or if they are open to it, confront with info anyone who would challenge you to otherwise hurt your baby. . .
13 Have a competent caregiver for your pregnancy if needed, but especially the birth and postpartum. Not everyone needs help with the pregnancy, but you cannot be your own caregiver at the birth of your baby without a lot of risks. You need a caregiver who can deal with but also avoid the emergencies. Like I mentioned in #1 just feeling out of your element can cause problems, but having procedures forced onto you by caregivers looking for convenience and treating you as a number is a classic cause of problems as well. The definition of a competent caregiver is IMO, one knows how to deliver most malpositioned or large babies without the use of a knife. Sadly, you will not find that level of training in any but the specialists of natural birth: homebirth Midwives (CPM's, lay Midwives or some Doulas ). So if you feel you need the hospital, just know that their training is inferior in natural birth, and so you will likely not have one.
14. Lastly, make friends with medicinal baths, they can add to your body what tastes bad, so you don't need to eat it. They can also take away what you shouldn't have put in there in the first place. I will get into my favorite medicinal baths, and all the many options in my next post called the wonders of medicinal baths.

Considering an "Unassisted childbirth"?

In dedication to my little (actually, 10 lbs. 5 oz. at birth) newborn Jayson, I want to educate the world on unassisted birth. (How he was brought into the world.)

Like me, more and more women are choosing to give birth at home without the assistance of doctors or certified midwives. And although this may shock and frighten some people, contrary to popular opinion, unassisted birth can actually be safer than assisted birth. When a woman is not interfered with, either physically by the assistant's hand (constant checking, monitoring, drugs, etc.) or psychologically by her own mind (fear, shame, and guilt), babies are often born quickly and easily.

 If you didn't already know this, an unassisted homebirth, otherwise known as a "traditional homebirth" , freebirth or "Unassisted childbirth"( "UC" for short) is not actually always totally unassisted, but is simply a birth not assisted by a licensed and certified professional. Most cases of UC that I have heard of have experienced or trained help though. Sometimes that help comes in the form of lay or training Midwives, Doulas or even nurses. . .often as well as a Mother or Mother in law, friend and usually the husband as well.

Some people do just UC at the birth, and get prenatal care, others do both unassisted pregnancy and childbirth. I only felt comfortable doing this now on my 5th baby, and frankly don't understand the mindset that wants to be completely alone the first time. Unassisted pregnancy and childbirth, especially the truly alone type, is definitely not for everyone, and I would be very concerned if many of you tried it! That said, you might be one of those who are ready to consider it as an option, so first let's talk about the legal ramifications. . .

While in some backwards states homebirth with even certified professional Midwives (CPM's) is still unregulated or even illegal, UC is surprisingly legal in every state! (As there is no way to prove that it didn't happen accidentally with a short labor.) So while you could not be prosecuted for neglect in the case of an emergency hospital transfer, or a bad outcome, often a certified or even lay Midwife is. Strangely though the line between lay Midwife (illegal in most states) and Doula (legal everywhere) is very fine and sketchy. Because of this, woman get away with their caregiver/Midwife coming with them to the hospital (unpersecuted) IF they are named as the mothers' Doula, and don't have a bunch of equipment with them.

Considering the legal issues and controversy surrounding CPM's and certified nurse midwives (CNM's) in some States, some choose to go solo simply based on this. Others, feeling they have no choice, because they cannot have the natural birth they want in a small local hospital (or even at home with some CPM's or CNM's) simply because they had a c-section before choose an UC. Other times the location a person is in just may not have a close enough Midwife, of any sort. Or the person wants more control, or they feel that intervention is dangerous or unneeded. Sometimes they are a professional themselves, or feel that they are good at caring for their own health themselves. Sometimes it is a case of cost being the issue as well. So for these reasons, and many more, people have had Unassisted childbirth (UC).

 I was one of those who simply saw no need for extra certified help in either the pregnancy or birth. I am also a bit of a control freak, and was not about to give control of my life or baby this last time to anyone else if I could help it. . .

 I nonetheless consider myself both well connected to and supported by the midwifery community, as well as well informed, and very healthy.  I have also seen numerous other homebirths (besides my own), studied Midwifery for many years (alone and with a study group) and am CPR and first aid certified, so was very well prepared. . .not everyone cares to be so involved and take that much responsibility though I understand.

 I also have a very knowledgable Doula friend who had assisted alongside a homebirth Midwife for years before starting nursing school. (She was at my birth, along with others and was very good. If you are in the VA area, and want an assistant, look her up through messaging me.) I had my cheat sheets, lists of supplies, herbals and descriptions and usages and individualized assistant instructions written out to the smallest details, (forms, lists and plans that I can also send in a message or e-mail if anyone needs them.) and with slight exceptions they were followed to a tee. (And also a transfer plan for both me and baby, with a birth plan written out for that case too.)

 I was done with feeling like a sick patient in labor, and like the baby and I had to be checked for position and life constantly. (It seemed very untrusting and pessimistic and the worry and stress it all caused was doing no good I knew.) I was in charge of nothing in labor it seemed in the past, even to some extent in my Homebirths with a CPM. So now finally with my last baby (my 5th living one) I struck out with an UC. My birth went unhindered, and better then any of my others at the hospital or home with a hired professional. I have no regrets.


What was the big deal you ask, that i would choose such an unconventional birth? What was even different about the birth then with an assisted birth with a CPM or CNM you ask? Well, for those curious of UC and pregnancy, I'll give you the nitty gritty of what I did, and why.

 In pregnancy I charted my typical signs and symptoms, but honestly only for accountability and curiosity. I also wanted to look legit in filling in the blanks on a sheet I got from a friend CPM. . . To tell the truth though, I really saw no need for any of it!

So what do your typical caregivers normally check that I now did?

1. Checking for weight.

Think about it, why worry about your weight gain if you are eating healthy food, and you are growing? If you are not gaining by the second trimester, that is an issue, but other then not gaining enough, a healthy woman  with a good diet should not be concerned with gaining too much. I have gained 45 to 50 lbs each time and just had big babies.

    2. urine sticks.

If you feel no issues with your bladder and feel good, why check your urine? I have had a few CPM's now tell me that the urine sticks are an old formality that rarely help with diagnosing anything, so I believe them. That said, I happen to have bought them in the past to check the PH of my family, so I did use them occasionally.

   3. Taking my blood pressure.

My blood pressure is classically low. . .too low, so I have had no worries about high BP and didn't take it more then when I visited Walmart a few times, and when a few of my friends wanted practice.

  4. Measuring my fundus.

So if I measured a little small (which I never do) I would know I might be a little off my mark on the bottom or top, or it's not a growth spurt time for baby. If I measured a little big, I would know that it is normal for me and likely not twins. Either way, as I do the fertility charting, I know my dates, and have never been off them much. (Though classically I was around 2 weeks late of my due date.) At worst case scenario, if the measurements were more then a little off, I would simply take myself in for an ultrasound to confirm life, growth and or twins. (The same thing a Midwife or doctor has and would do.)

   5. Ultrasounds.

There is no evidence that regular and routine ultrasounds help a pregnancy in any way, and to the contrary, there is evidence that they harm some cells in their formative stages. Particularly the ones in a baby girls ovaries, effecting the next generation. Though the studies have been covered up and people have been silenced. . .because the tests are a huge money maker! (In my area, each one not covered by insurance costs $800.00)

   6. Listening for babies heart tones.

This I could do (with borrowed equipment) but mostly others did with a fetoscope (for practice) but honestly I saw little use in it either. . . Besides after a diagnosis of a live baby, only in the rare case of distress in the womb before a miscarriage (because of a cord or placenta hemorrhage or some strange thing) does measuring heart tones actually give a better survival rate for the baby. . . but only if you just happen to check at the exact time it was happening. . .which is usually pretty sudden. So in the end, up until labor it is pretty much only good for connecting with baby and to tell us it's alive. . .something most mom's can feel pretty well from week 15 or so.

   7. Testing

The tests doctors put you through are predominantly about how good your diet and health is, which if you already know your issues, or don't have them, you can feel free to skip. For first babies, or if you aren't in a stable relationship, you may want some of those tests once at least, but they are something you can get yourself through a clinic or doctors office usually. Sometimes the pregnancy crisis centers offer them for free! I got my iron checked in all of my pregnancies, as that tends to be my issue, but I would think a test for all the vitamins and minerals you can do would be ideal! The better you can eat, and follow your actual needs and symptoms, the better off you and baby will be.

   8. Interventions.

From position checks, sweeping the membranes, cervical checks and breaking the bag of waters to shots of pitocin, oxygen, or tests and procedures for baby; all are at best useless or controversial and at worst dangerous.
   9. palpitation.

Checking for position, or two babies is unreliable at best (As I found putting myself in the hands of numerous assistants and Midwives one night and not telling them what the others felt.) It is somewhat reliable and useful in labor, but hopefully if you have been paying attention, and are at all good at feeling baby parts yourself, you will be just as good as the Midwife for telling where feet are and where the head is. . .though even when the baby is in a good position in labor it can change. (And vise versa.) So basically, it is simply for fun or curiosity and out of tradition that people do it. . .doctors do not do it at all.

 10. Advice

I found Midwives to know a lot about herbs, natural fixes and give good counsel as a general rule, but through a few good online resources I could also save myself the trouble of remembering to ask them stuff at the appointment time.

So, speaking of resources, If (preferably after having one or more assisted homebirths) you are considering going without professional help for your next pregnancy and/or birth, you will want many resources at your finger tips, much like I gave in my last post What you need for homebirth to be safe.


Some skills and things you will need for starters are:

1.  A knowledge of how and what to google when you have a question. As well as sources to trust. . .
2.  Wise (usually) older woman friends or family to ask counsel of or be a part of a study group for midwifery, etc.
3.  You and (one of) your planned birth assistant(s) being trained somewhat, having taken at least a course in baby CPR/first aid and preferably Neonatal Resuscitation. Also having some knowledge of Emergency Childbirth.  (Preferably like knowing warning signs and how to assist to deliver stuck babies.)
4. A few basic supplies (Everyone has different ideas of what one's are best, but the basics are really mostly for comfort for mom and cleanliness for the area in my opinion.)
5.  Natural remedies on hand for energy, electrolyte balance, blood loss, hemorrhage, trauma of tissue. . .these do no good though without well written out instructions for the assistant if they don't know their use, and you aren't in a frame of mind to tell her/him or remember.
6. A good chiropractor, massage therapist, acupuncturist or herbalist friend to run things by and get help from in the case of a breech baby, hips or tailbone out (hampering the decent of the baby) or otherwise before the birth. They can also be important in helping with recovery for you AND the baby and with signing some forms to get a birth certificate afterwards.
7. A plan for in the case of a hospital transfer, and a willingness to go if needed.
8. Good sites for info to assist you in both prenatal and your overall health like:

• Do-it-Yourself Prenatal Care
• Born Free! - "Laura Shanley's Unassisted Childbirth page." 
• Cure Zone.com and Cure Zone.org "Educating instead of Medicating" - Pages and pages of information, forums, articles and downloads about cleansing and curing an enormous array of conditions. Lots of info about iodine, mercury fillings, liver cleanses, parasites and so on. On the day I happened to add these links, these two sites had 7,566 and 11,188 visitors respectively online at that moment! Lots of activity and sharing of information.
• Dr. Joseph Mercola - His web site is over 10 years old and contains a true wealth of health related information. His newsletter has over 800,000 subscribers and brings a broad range of up to the minute health news, research and analysis to your inbox. Dr. Mercola's web site also now delivers a blog, videos, offers a few select products and maintains a community dedicated to creating health. This is a great resource.
• Earth Clinic - Folk Remedies and Holistic Cures - This large and informative site is one of the top ten most viewed alternative health sites on the web. What is very interesting and refreshing here is that much of the information comes from people writing in. You aren't just reading "expert opinions" here. What you are reading is reports of actual experiences of actual people actually using these remedies.
•  And don't forget, I have a ton more good sites specifically geared for educating people on homebirth in my last post called:  What you need for homebirth to be safe.

What you don't need is permission from your friends, or family, even your husband. (I know, those religious people will hate this lack of submission here, but as you can see in the rest of my blog, that didn't work for me.) This is your birth, and just as all mammals do, you need to be in a comfortable place, and doing what you need to do to feel safe. If that's being alone, with hubby or just a few good friends, it's the most relaxed and that makes it the safest place for you to birth.

Infertility in America; what races have the most of it, and why?

So maybe you've been inspired by my last few posts on children and are thinking down the lines of your fertility. . .
Seeing in "Are childless and/or non breastfeeding woman with children selfish for their choice?" that there is every reason in the world to get pregnant and have kids. And in my post: "Kids don't need a manual, they need an "attached", bonded mother!" you might be realizing that they aren't as tricky to raise (at least at first) as books and the old generation would lead you to think.
So now you may want to be pregnant, but sadly, you may find yourself a statistic who can't get pregnant. Statistics say that 12 percent of couples struggle with infertility in this country.
That said, the stats would actually be much higher taking a few things into account. . .for instance, if you are under 35, (the perfect age for bearing children) you are considered normal to have to try for a whole year before seeking help for infertility!

Let's presume in that time you might be having some miscarriages, or you would be pregnant everytime you  ovulated, like other mammals.  I got to thinking about this from an evolutionary perspective the other day; why, of all the animals in the world, do (seemingly) only humans have fertility issues? Hybrid animals also have infertility issues mind you. (And of course, if we have the blood of the aliens (O-) and animals (A and/or B and +) in our veins, we would be considered a hybrid. As I discussed quite a bit in the early posts of my series on the aliens, the original gods, and those of their bloodline seemed to have unnatural conceptions, (i.e. Jesus) or issues with fertility (the Jewish patriarch's wives all needed help from "God" to conceive).

 If a person isn't aware of their fertility signs though, their body may be unknowingly both ovulating and naturally aborting half of their offsprings -due to a recessive RH- in their blood, which no one tests for. And if you are the blood of the aliens, and religiously believe their "spirit" is in you, that could be a big deal, depending on when you believe the spirit goes into the baby. It has been a big deal to me in the past as a Christian believing that "the breath of life"/ being the Spirit, begins at conception. I go with a different theory now though. That the light at the end of the tunnel is actually your re-birth. Jesus spoke of the process of being born again, and I think this may be what he was in reference to. As a Spirit's host body of flesh dies, they go into the body of another host as they are being born. Thus being born again!

Anyhow, back to this theory of the white bloodline being hybrids. . .this could be evidenced by a considerably higher rate of infertility in whites then other minorities. Although color does not necessarily show bloodtype or if you are a hybrid of the god's creation anymore because of the mixing of races these days, if there was a high level of infertility in whites over other minorities, it would certainly be cause to suspect the theory is right. . .

In America the statistics would be confusing with the slight mixing of say blacks and whites, not always being obvious, as well as the diet and consequently obesity levels of the poorer minorities leading to hormonal and health issues that effect fertility. But putting that aside for now, one study of infertile couples showed that out of 756 patients, 85.2% were white, 10.2% were black, and 4.4% were other. (And that was 12 years ago when the obesity levels were lower, and the food was better!)

 Another key issue in messing up the stats in America some say could be that the minorities that may be seeking help from expensive fertility doctors are either on a state medical insurance, (that is more likely to encourage sterilization then seeking help for infertility if you are poor) or may not be able to afford the suggested help, so are unlikely to go in for treatment. (The exceptions would be the middle class or rich minorities. These are the non typical, that don't fit in with the minority stereotypes at all. My guess is that like Obama, they are a mixed breed, with RH- or O blood in their family tree.)

So I would suggest we go deeper, say, back to the less mixed Africans in Africa, to find out what true infertility rates actually are.

Some differentiate between preventable and health related infertility as "secondary infertility", while the genetic or unexplained infertility is deemed "primary infertility".  According to the World Health Organization taskforce that conducted a study of 8504 couples in 33 countries in Africa:

"While primary infertility is [much] higher in other regions of the world, secondary infertility is more common in Africa". Even without a previous history of pelvic inflammatory disease or STDs many of these woman had tubal diseases and infections. "African infections are common due to inadequate health services, improper use of antibiotics, and penicillin-resistant strains of gonorrhea." (Not to mention unsanitary conditions, Aids, sleeping around without access to protection, etc. . .)

Source

 True "primary infertility", where treatment is actually being sought out, is very uncommon for developing nations, (that have little to no mixing from the alien bloodline) from what I have read. So while different risk factors like STD's, poor diets and unsanitary conditions for some "races" has seemingly made the stats closer to even, (especially in this mixed up country) the truly unexplained cases of infertility seem to be predominantly for the whites. This certainly seems to answer the question of which race has infertility the most, and probably even why. . .but I feel like I need to bring out a few other points.

So, is it just me, or are the even semi healthy eating, middle class and/or functioning minority families over run with kids!? Maybe there's a reason that with their added fertility the minorities are even with many large families, and high rates of twins, they are having the most abortions and their kids are ending up in the foster system in droves. . .Is it really just about money? It would seem to me that large functioning families that want kids would make due with small spaces and being on wic, foodstamps, etc, and make a way in this affluent country where handouts are easy to find.

 Tax breaks, public schools, libraries to homeschool, government housing, heating/cooling help, and food programs, as well as community/church clothing and food pantries also all make having more kids really very, very cheap, and even a benefit these days! 

Unless you are stressing over money for private school, college, music lessons or the like, (which is almost unheard of in poor neighborhoods where hordes of kids run wild in the streets) then there should be no reason why a responsible and healthy mother in a stable relationship should be needing regular abortions, at the expense of the tax payer. . .and yet, according to stats, blacks and Hispanics are having a lot! While whites are doing most of the adopting and fostering of their children. Why would the minorities be seeking to ditch their hordes on anyone else? Maybe partially because they have what is considered by white society, "too many kids", and they feel that they are just using up resources!

Hey, I'm not personally saying any number is too many, (if you have the patience, support, time and the money to care for them) as I have 4 and am pregnant with number 5 myself. . . "I wouldn't have a leg to stand on" if I started to "cast stones" at large, responsible families. Unfortunately, I see a lot of abuse in childraising these days. Is some of it stemming from the younger age of puberty because of the hormones in foods in this country? While that may play a part I'm sure, but it seems to me that a lot of the abuse and  abortions stem from the mothers abusive upbringing in a poor, dysfunctional family.

 Minorities also just naturally have earlier puberty, one of the many differences I believe I discussed in my popular post: The difference in our blood, and what it means. Part 3, with minorities hitting puberty younger then whites by at least a year or two, sometimes up to 4, this lends itself to problems. . .

While adoption or fostering may be an option to these young girls finding themselves pregnant out of wedlock, often those who grew up in the system themselves, (only to be abused) feel that an abortion would have been a better end for them. So not wanting to send their own children to that fate, and going by the golden rule, when they find themselves pregnant, (at sometimes as young as 10) they feel they are ill prepared to either emotionally or physically deal with the pregnancy or the birth. Usually on top of that, they are scared of what it would mean for their school work, chance of a job, having life goals, etc.  Raising the child without a supportive family, (which is often rare) they know would be impossible, so having no hope of keeping the pregnancy, much less the child afterwards, they choose the best of two evils.

 I think unreadiness to take on a family, dysfunctional and abusive families, and the high fertility rate associated with young minority girls are all good reasons for the high abortion rate in minorities. All in all, in this country it seems that they (mostly single woman) are less able to handle the large families, or any kids at all! Mind you, much of that can be blamed on their expectations of fitting in with this white culture, something that they did not evolve to do, nor should they want to do. 

Also, the dehumanizing of black males, (as passed down from father to son by example from their slavery days) no doubt played a major part that led to a breakdown of the family unit. (I'm not just generalizing or judging them, but their divorce rate in this country is horrible, even considering that half of them never officially marry!) If they got back to their roots, and how their culture and families looked like in Africa, they would do fine I'm sure with large families though. 

In the mean time, those who desperately want kids, are mature enough, have enough money, would make great parents, etc, struggle with having kids. While those who don't want them, and are too young, have neither education, money, or support for them, are over run by them. Is it fair? Well, I had to learn this bitter truth in my own struggles with infertility: "life isn't fair", but for your own sanity, you've just got to believe, that it will all turn out in the end for the best. . .or as the Christians like to say, "All things work together for good. . ."

Kids don't need a manual, they need an "attached", bonded mother!

I love to research and plan, so it might not shock you to hear that when I was expecting my first baby, (and found that I had a rare and unusual issue called an irritable uterus, making me practically bedridden a lot of the pregnancy) I used every spare moment to read all the baby books I could get my hands on. I lived in close proximity to a library in the first half of my pregnancy, and when I moved mid pregnancy, I made good use of two large ones near my new house too.

 Sadly, after reading about all the silly things I should avoid, (hot baths, too much salt, high reaching, getting up too fast. . .) as well as every possible pregnancy symptom, birth complication, pain drug and hospital routine I would be subjected to at birth (in the hospital that I was unfortunately forced to give birth in), I anticipated a really horrible time.

Furthermore, being prepared by reading about all the possible and rare breastfeeding issues, and how to prepare for and protect your breasts from breastfeeding, as well as wearing the right clothes, putting a pin on each side after they're emptied, and only feed for a certain amount of time. . . I concluded that feeding this stranger was going to be the hardest thing next to birth that I will ever have to do! (As opposed to the natural process that it was when left alone.)

 I was made to feel insecure and petrified in just about every way as a parent. I was told I shouldn't listening to my instincts, and instead listen to the pediatrician. (Which advice I had thrown out by my second child thankfully, or she would be dead!) I was instructed to schedule babies feedings, time and schedule awake and sleep times, (never sleeping with baby, as that would be UNSAFE!) micromanaging by baby as if she had no say in the matter. To say the least, she was a miserable baby, who cried so much I thought it must be colic. . .until I saw how good she was for other people. . .

  In pregnancy I also read about the theory of classical music building the brain, and reading and singing to the baby in the womb doing so with one child. Some books even taught me to use brain building black and white patterns and face flash cards at certain times, and done in a certain way to educate the baby. Then there is baby sign language, which while teaching one form of communication, some suspect it sets back talking, with the lack of need. It never connected in my mind that like the book says, "Einstein never used flashcards".

 I did all that junk with only my second child. . . and later I realized that they were all just as brilliant as her, and she had no memory of what a regime I put her and myself through while she was in the womb. (If anything, this was my least brilliant child, only scoring in the 98th percentile in academics, instead of the 99th like her other two siblings.)

 Instead of reading the books or evidence showing the research of what is actually proven to build the brain, or IQ (like a healthy diet, frequent "kangaroo care" touch and extended nursing), I believed I could try really hard and school the smarts into my child. I wasn't told that genetics are really the most important thing connected to a higher IQ.

Then there were the books and mothers from the last generation that all pretty much agreed that giving too much attention and holding would make the baby spoiled. So when the baby acted like they didn't want you to put them down, discipline or at least distraction methods were always suggested. And never giving in to their crying was the key. (Of course this mentality stemmed from the belief that they had a sin nature. . .)

The books said that they needed to be taught to not need you by forcing them to use a pacifier from an early age. It was called a "plug" at times because, like using duct tape, all the pacifier did was basically shut the baby temporarily up. Making it hopefully forget why it needed you. Some cultures call it a "dummy" partially because it makes the baby literally "dumb", and partially because it is a replacement of mom. It is a poor substitute, and just like formula, many babies refuse it. Yet, we know that babies and young children need to suck, not just for food, but for security and comfort. . .so the mother has the same choice as she did with formula in the older generation, be uncouth to society and nurse for comfort and to sleep, or use a "pacifier".


Whether moms know it or not though, needing a pacifier is a sign that the baby needs security, as it is not getting it from it's mom. "Pacifiers" can be found in many forms, from a thumb, to a blanket or doll. The closer the attachment to the object(s), the more security the child needs and derives from the replacement mother. (Which is a poor replacement too might I add.)

 So, while it is rare to find a breastfed baby nursing even occasionally for comfort (in any part of the world) past 3 or 4, we many times see older children with blankets, or sucking their thumbs.  I have even seen adults who suck their thumbs, usually in their sleep! Don't ever let anyone tell you that is normal or natural for a child or adult to do this. . ."security blankets" special dolls, or a dependence of pacifiers or thumb sucking to get calm or to sleep are all obvious signs of insecurity, and neediness in a child or adult. (And yes, this is a personal testimony. . .)

 I was reading a lot of old books in libraries (that should be burned!) and I was being taught some very old (religion based) ideas from most of the older woman in my life, who had no idea of the bad science or consequences their suggestions and advice had on the mental health of babies. . . so in ignorance, I too went blissfully on, believing that I was well read and ready when it came time to birth my first little girl. . .but now I know how wrong I was! 

One thing I have learned, through much trial and error though, is that if you try something, and it feels wrong, stop it! Thankfully I listened to my instincts FIRST as a new mother, probably because of my lack of trust in my authority, thanks to the "training" I had as a baby. It is honestly probably the one thing I did right with my firstborn! At first though I tried every bit of doctor or old lady advice, but usually stopped it within a week or less as I saw what it was doing to my daughter.

Traditionally, mothers didn't need to be told how to give birth, or be a mother, they simply needed support in doing what they instinctively knew to do. Instinct tells all animals how it's done, and we are no exception! What started the confusion? Male Doctors of course.

 First they told us that pregnancy was a disease, birth was an emergency, and sleeping with our children was the reason for the spread of diseases, and death. . . While there were some diseases that spread, (causing much fear) the diseased germs almost invariably originated out of dietary deficiencies and unsanitary conditions. So while being close to your family did spread it to them, it didn't justify living in quarantine from them indefinitely! Especially your needy baby!!

  The Christian religious community readily picked up on this fear of rolling over on your baby, as their favorite book the Bible spoke of a story of a mother rolling over on her newborn son. (Never mind the fact that the woman was a harlot, sleeping with another woman who had a baby. She was likely a drunk, with a poor little malnurished baby. . .which most of the bad stats for rolling over on babies comes from being drunk even today.)

Oh, but that wasn't all, the (religiously biased) doctors told mothers that they weren't animals, and didn't need to feed their babies a "primitive milk", when they could give them their convenient scientific "formula". (More "snake oil" peddling for profit. . .and man is it expensive!)  It was marketed as more sanitary, and "civilized" in our Victorian society. No woman of society would dare show herself feeding her baby from her body in public in the past.  It was a shame and not acceptable, associated with the poor and dirty . . .similar to going topless as a woman in our culture now.

  Formula was also freeing to the feminist business women who wanted to, or had to, work away from home.  Though sometimes out of desperation the woman would feel ripped away from her baby because of work, but too often, the mother couldn't wait to get back to work! Many times the lacking maternal desire that would cause such a mindset towards their baby and role as caregiver though stemmed from the drugged up births, and the consequent lack of bonding that they had. This experience, often exacerbated by the formula feeding, schedules, control and discipline they were taught to do after the baby was out, caused a disconnect with feeling like mom, or even a resentment towards the baby for slowing them down, or ruining their figure or lifestyle.

Lastly, doctors were the origin of the myth of the spoiled baby. Mothers were told that if they picked up their crying baby, or spent too much time holding them, you were spoiling your child, and they would learn to be dependent and clingy. . .(whereas doctors like Dr. Sears have noted that those who were raised with attachment parenting methods were yes, clingier at first, but ended up the most appropriately independent, confident and trusting children by age 2 or so.) Consequently, inventions were made to entertain, swaddle, rock and distract the baby from what it really wanted and needed. . .mom! A fortune has been made, and spent on these unnecessary contraptions, that babies rarely like much anyhow, and yet parents keep buying them!

Mothers even still today get so prepared for babyhood being a miserable chore, that a goldmine has opened up even besides the toys, pacifiers, swings, bouncers, jolly jumpers, etc. . .that of child-raising classes and baby books! And yet, in other countries, colicky, crying, and miserable "spoiled" babies are not hardly seen. . .while having little or no access to baby books or classes.  As a matter of fact, it is well known that "African babies don't cry!" It is rare to see a young crying baby in most of Africa, look it up! (A few places have some cruel practices of force feeding solids while plugging the nose of the baby or of circumcising both male and females though mind you . .both of which cause crying.) If a baby is crying for more then a few seconds, the mothers quickly step in to help or give disapproving looks. This I saw in Africa for myself in the cultures untouched by white man. You see, in native cultures, babies are carried, nursed on demand and through the night because they sleep with mom. . .and consequently they are happy.

The problem is, we live in a culture that has taught woman to go against her gut feelings to nurture and do what she knows to do. Consequently then we have whole books written just to fix what should have never been a problem if women hadn't been told the bad advice in the first place.

It is not hard to have a happy baby when you are going with your natural instincts to mother them. That may seem like a huge blanket statement, but I ask you, if you had an issue with breastfeeding, and it wasn't a rare issue of tongue tied baby or flat nipples, (both of which are fixed with support and care from a lactation consultant.) could it have been a bad birth experience/drugs at birth, pumping/separation from baby, bad positioning because of bad advice, or a rigid schedule that may have caused the lack of milk, the engorgement, or the pain and problems?

Or if your baby was "colicky", could it be that you were giving them formula that didn't digest well (which is all of them) or trying to control them with a schedule and they were just saying that they weren't tired, or were hungrier then the schedule allowed time for eating in? They also may have been suffering from the mental trauma of a bad birth, that we know now greatly effects babies in the first few months. Also if the baby wasn't carried much, most babies will be fussy about the disorienting feeling of going from the movement of the womb to being still.

Bonded mothers want to breastfeed, sleep close, and carry their babies. . . usually in a carrier or sling. But bad breastfeeding advice can even make bonded moms stop holding baby (probably because her back kills from improper nursing positions). Consequently, the baby requires more movement, white noise (like a heart beat teddy, ocean noises, shhing sounds or just plain loud sounds) and just plain comfort to replace the secure feeling it was use to in the womb.  Babies who aren't carried are unsettled, like a sailor trying to get it's land legs again after being out to sea for a while.

 If you give the baby the honor of a natural birth, (in an uncontrolled homey setting) you and he/she will have the natural bonding and desire for a host of other things. Breastfeeding doesn't go well when you are sore, tired, drugged and angry at baby for a miserable birth.  To make matters worse, even when you feel bonded with a good birth,  immediate force feeding baby after birth, instead of letting them lead, as well as hard positions on mom's back, only stress out and hurt mom, and hinder milkflow.

Laying down, (side or back) or reclined far back is natural and then baby is in control. No hands involved! I learned that from sheer laziness, and ease, and came to find out that it was a "NEW position" called "Biological nursing" that the best lactation consultants were just starting to teach.  Umm, it's been around as long as mothers weren't told how to nurse. Babies nurse from any angle, and can even crawl over the shoulder when they are older. It all works. The breast is like the face of a clock in the right position, and the baby is safe, and in control the whole time.

Then of course, baby is colder (or sometimes hotter) then it's become use to in the womb. . . proper temperature regulation is hard for a baby when you aren't there to sleep beside him/her. So you can swaddle, (making the baby feel helpless to change it's hot situation) or put a heated rice pack on or beside the baby to warm them. But while temporarily helping, you often find a very sweaty baby when they wake up. The other extreme being a cold baby who has kicked off the covers, and is unable to sleep long that way. Both are fixed by baby sleeping with mom.

So, how can you have a happy, secure and trusting baby that grows up to feel loved, while respecting your authority, all the while without you needing to control, manipulate, or abuse them in order to do it? Treat them as you would want to be treated, (Ever heard of the golden rule? It applies to babies too. . .). Forget what society or doctors have told you, if it goes against natural instinct or conscience, and start listening to your mother instincts. The instinctual and natural way of mammals worldwide BTW is to keep their babies with them at pretty much all times in that first dependent time of life; and until they break away from you. Cuddling and nursing on demand and by their side, and sleeping with their mom's through the night is the norm.

In the end, those ""attachment parenting" mammals, or those who follow in their stead, are mothers who are well rested, bonded, and comparatively de-stressed because they have what most would deem, an "easy baby" That is a baby who will later grow into a child who while confident and independent, nonetheless loves and obeys you happily. . .

Or you could do it the more "civilized", controlling and religious way of raising your baby, out of likely ignorance/religious teachings, selfishness or necessity from busyness. The end of which usually ends up with Mom and the family despising "miserable" babyhood, the "terrible two's" or the "trying threes", then later having a rebellious teen who has issues with authority and trust. . .

Of course, depending on how harshly you discipline your child in the first few years or not, you may end up with a passively rebellious child for many years, that you only later realize is rebellious (other then miserable in their first years) when they get to be as big as you, and feel they can defend themselves against your abusive ways. Yes, this is the story of many religiously raised kids I know, that apear so perfectly behaved at first. . . Parents, wake up, and don't start this cycle over again with your kids, PLEASE! Love is not control, it is protection. Which, while including guidelines for their safety, has nothing to do with making cookie cutter robots for your own selfish gains. Thanks for reading my thoughts on this touchy subject; now my rant is done.

Are childless and/or non breastfeeding woman with children selfish for their choice?

The choice to be a career woman instead of having kids, (even when you are happily in a relationship) or to bottle feed kids if you do have them are a lot of things, but I would not say "selfish"! That word would imply a gain or benefit to the woman who makes such choices. So lest you don't know, let's go over some of the reasons why it's actually far more self-serving to have kids and then breastfeed them.

First, did you know that amid the troubles of pregnancy and birth, (of which I have my share believe me!) there are actually health benefits to having children:

Every pregnancy:

•  stops cystic fybroids from growing.
• regulates your progesterone levels with the estrogen dominance that is frequently caused by stress, bad diet, and birth control pills.
•  detoxes you, as evidenced by the fatigue of every woman, and the nausea and throwing up of those who need the most detoxing. Also the bright smelly pee is not just the supplements, it's the junk coming out thanks in part to some of them though maybe. (The body protects the baby as much as it can by detoxing throughout pregnancy.)
• lowers your chances of uterine cancer.

The mental benefits of pregnancy and children:

• gives you purpose/you have someone who can carry on after you/ one to protect
• gives self esteem/makes you feel needed
• humbles you
• teaches you patience
• helps you grow up and be responsible as you care for them by caring for yourself at times
• helps you prioritize your time properly for what matters in life: people
• changes your circle of friends to a more responsible and mature crowd
• bonds you with your mother, and other mothers
• shows you what love and trust looks like in a human
• you feel so womanly and often beautiful
• as you get much more attention and politeness
• sometimes you get special deals, parking spots, tax incentives and help with healthcare, carseats or food from the government. . .adding up to less stress financially and physically.
• and much more. . .

As for breastfeeding, it helps mom in many ways both
Physically:

• Immediately following birth, a mother who breastfeeds will have less bloodloss, (and chance of hemorrhage)  because the sucking stimulates a clamping down of the uterus, shutting off the blood from the placenta site.
• helps mom recover from the bloodloss of birth before the return of a period, (which can cause anemia if started too soon) Menstrual bleeding drains her of a lot more iron then breastfeeding does. (Especially beneficial is doing biological breastfeeding, which practically guarantees a 6 month pregnancy/menstruation free period. . .more typical is a year or so, but closer to two for me!)
• This guaranteed (98-99% according to La Leche League stats) spacing of children ensures a healthier next child with recovery of mom's stores. (Although 2 years in between a birth and the start of the next  pregnancy is more traditionally accepted as healthy, and best for the children's development and mom's mental health.)
• Weightloss, as it speeds up metabolism equal to burning 200-500 calories a day. . .the equivalent of biking uphill for an hour EVERY DAY!
• mothers with gestational diabetes had lower bloodsugar (more regulated) then non breastfeeding ones in studies. . .between the lessened weight and the better bloodsugar, this translates to a long term lessoned risk of type 2 diabetes later in life.
• breastfeeding mothers have good levels of good cholesterol, and lower blood pressure when compared to non breastfeeding mothers. Taking the rest into consideration, this means a lesser risk of heart disease in later life.
• a lessened risk of imbalance of calcium/magnesium, because of the way breastfeeding depletes calcium, which is abundant in the soil and diet. (Whereas magnesium is not abundant naturally, and is cooked out of food, and lost with stress. We need a 1/1 ratio) Excess calcium (especially in indigestible forms) and not equal magnesium amounts is connected to osteoporosis and bone spurs because of calcium deposits.
• a lessened risk of uterine, ovarian and breast cancer, that lessens with each year of breastfeeding.
• regular and on demand feedings from the start will ensure that there is no painful engorgement when the milk comes in. . .a lousy process if you choose to let yourself dry up "right off the bat".

Also mentally and practically:

• breastfeeding produces oxytocin, the "love" or "bonding" hormone that heightens the mother/ baby bond.
• breastfeeding provides skin to skin "kangaroo care".  . .proven to be very beneficial to all ages of babies.
• Breastfeeding also produces a hormone called prolactin, which is known to calm the nerves, an asset in child raising!
• there is a lessened risk of post partum depression, because of more progesterone in the body with breastfeeding. (Sometimes there is still a deficiency though with a bad diet or stress, and a natural supplemental cream is then a benefit to many moms.)

• it creates a stronger brain response to baby's cry, creating more empathy and likelihood of a maternal reaction. (Further helping your bond, and creating trust with baby.)
• With support and knowledge if needed, breastfeeding creates confidence in your body, and it's natural workings.
• you can be confident that you are busty without silicone implants.
• you can be confident and proud that you are doing what's good for the environment.
• Breastfeeding is much more convenient for night feedings, so you get more sleep, especially if you practice co-sleeping!
• Much more convenient for outings too.
• Also much easier for moms nursing a toddler; not stressing about the child eating enough nutritious solid food every day, as many kids are sporadic or picky eaters.
• No worry over formula recalls.
• Much cheaper to breastfeed! 
• No bottles, nipples and pumps to clutter up your house and clean constantly.
• No worry over toxins in the BPAs and formula.
• No issues with constipation or rejection of formula.
• With comfort nursing there is no stress over weaning from pacifiers/soothers or thumb sucking, (or even special blankets or dolls) as those are simply a replacement for the comfort a mom should give with her breasts until naturally outgrown/weaned. . . or the child may revert in desperation to one of those mock mothers for comfort. Studies seem to indicate that comfort nursing decreases a baby’s heart rate and lets him relax. It seems to have a very positive effect on his whole physical and emotional well-being. Don’t be afraid to allow this type of nursing. Breastfeeding is more than just imparting fluids and nourishment. It’s a way to nurture your child as well.
• You'll have a natural all-purpose, incredibly useful liquid at your disposal (Breastmilk has over 58 uses!)
• You can be lazy and lie in bed all day, (at least at first) and be a great mom!
• babies diapers (cloth) and clothes clean up easier if the baby is drinking breastmilk, then if drinking formula.
• you will save money on menstrual pads.

Source source Source Source Source

All these reasons, while good, are simply for the benefit of the mom, but there are a ton of reasons why you should nurse your baby besides these! Check out this resource for

101 Reasons Why You Should Breastfeed Your Baby!

As you can see, even though many would believe that the decision to first not have kids, and then to not breastfeed them if you do have them are usually based on "convenience" or "selfishness", I believe that in most cases of both, it is instead sheer ignorance.

If this article was convincing enough to make you rethink your decision to not have kids, you will not be sorry. I have met plenty of old people who were sorry that they didn't have any, or stopped having kids for numerous shallow reasons, but I have never met one yet who regrets having a single child they did have. If your troubles are not that you don't want them, but that you can't, there are two simple strategies I would suggest: Progesterone cream, and buying a book called "Taking charge of your fertility".

If this article has helped sway you away from not breastfeeding your baby, then let me share with you some great resources for breastfeeding.

One thing that is nice first off is an article of what to expect at different stages of breastfeeding, I stumbled upon a really good article here.

The top breastfeeding websites I have heard of are:


Kelly Mom - evidence-based answers about all things breastfeeding!

La Leche League- World renown resource for all things breastfeeding and child. A little too big of an organization to be as up to date (especially in their old books) as some of the other websites, but over all good info.

Breastfeeding USA, very up to date info on lots of subjects about breastfeeding.

Laid Back Breastfeeding- the only position you need to know about, besides side laying. . .all the rest are just plain not comfortable, and hurt your back. (Unless you are standing and baby is in a sling. . .) Also here.

Human Milk for Human Babies – milk sharing through Facebook, for when there is a rare physical problem with baby or mom.