Does "secular"=antichrist, midwives, "holistic" and discernment thread

Pray_Everyday

Robin
Woman
Other Christian
I have had some weird experiences with the standard western medicine and the woo woo practitioners with my husband’s health but it seems the issues of spiritual and philosophical underpinnings are esp strong with childbirth. Interesting.
I agree, and I think many women who are irreligious or "casual Christians" either are not bothered by these elements, or don't wonder the "why"s of it.

As for myself, when I had my first child I would have already said that I was a Christian, but the level of discernment needed to see through these practices was not there. During my second pregnancy, when we hired the midwife, was when I really started exploring these topics. Something about these things just seemed inherently wrong, but there was nothing online that put together all the pieces. While I was upfront about not desiring to take part in these practices, the lie of it all being "optional" decieved me, and I have to admit that I was very foolish to have risked the possibility of hurting my child this way, whether physically or spiritually.

Women should be cautious who they allow into their home. Sirach 11:29
I agree.

Something I would like to add is that reviews on review sites like yelp on these midwives may be skewed in their favor. While I would love to leave a truthful and accurate review about my experiences, my husband cautioned me from doing so, as this woman practices witchcraft, has been in our home and knows where we live and other personal information, yet we know virtually nothing about her (except her name and that she's "licensed"). It's not unthinkable that other women who have had negative experiences have also remained silent, especially as there is a lot of brainwashing involved.


This is exactly how manipulative hospitals and doctors can be with women (I don’t doubt there are midwives who do the same, btw). All they have to do is tell a woman if you don't do xyz your baby will die right now.
I'm not sure what you mean by "this" because you quoted my entire reply to you, but I'll try to make sense of it from the context of the rest of your reply. But first, I just had to address that if doctors do engage in these manipulation tactics, that midwives also engage in, in the end it is the hospital that has the surgical equipment if it becomes necessary. And most of the midwife manipulation is in the form of don't do xyz that makes medical sense, but instead engage in cannibalism or sexual perversion.

some doctor confession stories years ago and some OBs admitted to using scare tactics to get their patients to have a c-section so they can make their plane flight in time, etc., awful stuff like that. Unnecessary procedures and coercion happen all the time in medicine, but especially with women’s pregnancies
I agree that the system is flawed, and I know firsthand that doctors can try to rush things in order to get to their next whatever. It's not something I had mentioned in my original birth story post, but that doctor had informed us that she had somewhere to be and we could use the forceps to speed it up. But I declined, and was not forced, though it did make me very angry at the medical system and was one of the factors in seeking out an alternative.

Also, I don't know how old that story is, or if it's different in every state, but I will say that after they cancelled the c section that I had originally been scheduled for they absolutely refused to give me a c section, no matter what. Apparently hospitals are trying to have the lowest c section rates possible for whatever bureaucratic reasons, and now it can be difficult for a woman to get a c section unless absolutely necessary. As I said, location may play a part.

Looking back at my emergency c-section, it’s possible that my baby just needed to be shifted or might have wiggled himself free of the umbilical. I’ll never know. And if a different doctor that I didn’t trust had told me I needed a c-section, I might have said “no.”
You're right, there is no way of knowing after the fact. But I do know that without continuous monitoring (which they can't do at home) there is no way of knowing if the baby is in distress. So therefore, no way of knowing if you need to shift positions.

Just going by my two hospital birth experiences, if the heart rate was dropping the first plan of action was to shift to different positions and see if it recovered. It was definitely the opposite of "ok, let's go to surgery!"

It also makes a difference when the heartrate is dropping, relative to the contractions (early, variable, and late decelerations) which is impossible to determine with a hand-held doppler or worse an old school fetoscope, which is what homebirth midwives have.

"Intermittent variable decelerations are generally not associated with adverse perinatal outcomes, and they often do not require treatment. Recurrent variable decelerations, where the decelerations occur with 50% or more of the contractions, are less common and more concerning."


"The primary etiology of a late declaration is found to be uteroplacental insufficiency. Decreased blood flow to the placenta causes a reduced amount of blood and oxygen to the fetus."

Pregnancy and childbirth is inherently risky, whether at home or in a hospital. There are different risks to either choice. There is nothing “safe” about childbirth to begin with
I agree that childbirth is inherently risky. Midwives say otherwise.

At a hospital, there is a higher risk of having a cesarean (which is common sense since surgery cannot be performed at home), and higher episiotomy risk or instrumental delivery. But at home there is a 3 times higher chance of the baby dying and even higher chance than that of the baby suffering brain damage.

From link:

"A meta-analysis of outcomes from home births and hospital births shows that women who give birth at home do have fewer procedures and complications—but their newborns are three times more likely to die."



And if anyone wants to read a more "scholarly" publication:

"Of concern, this investigation identified a doubling and tripling of the neonatal mortality rate overall and among nonanomalous offspring, respectively, in planned home compared to planned hospital births. This finding is particularly robust considering the homogeneity of the observation across studies. It is especially striking as women planning home births were of similar and often lower obstetric risk than those planning hospital births."

"Women, particularly low-risk parous individuals, choosing home birth are in large part successful in achieving their goal of delivering with less morbidity and medical intervention than experienced during hospital-based childbirth. Of significant concern, these apparent benefits are associated with a near tripling of the neonatal mortality rate among nonanomalous infants."

Let’s not forget… medical errors are the third leading cause of death in the US. And after all this COVID baloney, I don’t see how anyone can willing check themselves into a hospital anymore knowing full well how the medical profit scam works and how, once you’re in there, your bodily autonomy is completely in jeopardy.
Because they want their baby to have a higher chance of not dying a preventable death?

And honestly, that statement sounds just as much as "birth shaming" as me saying that woman was foolish for valuing her experience over safety while having high risk factors. Just saying.
 

Starlight

Kingfisher
Woman
Protestant
I was expanding on my previous comment and replying to you about how doctors/medicine/hospitals, etc. can be manipulative by using fear.
But first, I just had to address that if doctors do engage in these manipulation tactics, that midwives also engage in, in the end it is the hospital that has the surgical equipment if it becomes necessary. And most of the midwife manipulation is in the form of don't do xyz that makes medical sense, but instead engage in cannibalism or sexual perversion.


I agree that the system is flawed, and I know firsthand that doctors can try to rush things in order to get to their next whatever. It's not something I had mentioned in my original birth story post, but that doctor had informed us that she had somewhere to be and we could use the forceps to speed it up. But I declined, and was not forced, though it did make me very angry at the medical system and was one of the factors in seeking out an alternative.

Also, I don't know how old that story is, or if it's different in every state, but I will say that after they cancelled the c section that I had originally been scheduled for they absolutely refused to give me a c section, no matter what. Apparently hospitals are trying to have the lowest c section rates possible for whatever bureaucratic reasons, and now it can be difficult for a woman to get a c section unless absolutely necessary. As I said, location may play a part.
You're right, there is no way of knowing after the fact. But I do know that without continuous monitoring (which they can't do at home) there is no way of knowing if the baby is in distress. So therefore, no way of knowing if you need to shift positions.

Just going by my two hospital birth experiences, if the heart rate was dropping the first plan of action was to shift to different positions and see if it recovered. It was definitely the opposite of "ok, let's go to surgery!"

It also makes a difference when the heartrate is dropping, relative to the contractions (early, variable, and late decelerations) which is impossible to determine with a hand-held doppler or worse an old school fetoscope, which is what homebirth midwives have.

"Intermittent variable decelerations are generally not associated with adverse perinatal outcomes, and they often do not require treatment. Recurrent variable decelerations, where the decelerations occur with 50% or more of the contractions, are less common and more concerning."


"The primary etiology of a late declaration is found to be uteroplacental insufficiency. Decreased blood flow to the placenta causes a reduced amount of blood and oxygen to the fetus."


I agree that childbirth is inherently risky. Midwives say otherwise.

At a hospital, there is a higher risk of having a cesarean (which is common sense since surgery cannot be performed at home), and higher episiotomy risk or instrumental delivery. But at home there is a 3 times higher chance of the baby dying and even higher chance than that of the baby suffering brain damage.

From link:

"A meta-analysis of outcomes from home births and hospital births shows that women who give birth at home do have fewer procedures and complications—but their newborns are three times more likely to die."



And if anyone wants to read a more "scholarly" publication:

"Of concern, this investigation identified a doubling and tripling of the neonatal mortality rate overall and among nonanomalous offspring, respectively, in planned home compared to planned hospital births. This finding is particularly robust considering the homogeneity of the observation across studies. It is especially striking as women planning home births were of similar and often lower obstetric risk than those planning hospital births."

"Women, particularly low-risk parous individuals, choosing home birth are in large part successful in achieving their goal of delivering with less morbidity and medical intervention than experienced during hospital-based childbirth. Of significant concern, these apparent benefits are associated with a near tripling of the neonatal mortality rate among nonanomalous infants."
I actually read through the sources you picked and the ones from the Slate article had good chunk of the links 404’d. So it was hard to follow up on their claims. The one from AJOG is over a decade old…

I’ll submit some more contemporary relevant research:
This study was peer-reviewed and published in The Lancet
And another

They’re both worth a good read.

Also, I think we’re both arguing for the same thing, which is better care for pregnant women and their babies during childbirth. It shouldn’t have to be an either/or decision… That’s all I’m saying…

Because they want their baby to have a higher chance of not dying a preventable death?

And honestly, that statement sounds just as much as "birth shaming" as me saying that woman was foolish for valuing her experience over safety while having high risk factors. Just saying.
The comment was meant “in general” which is why I wrote “anyone” and not any group specifically. Seriously, have you not been paying attention? It’s not 2019 anymore…
I was so stupid one time when I was younger, I went to the hospital thinking I had appendicitis. First they gave me an unnecessary abdominal CT scan (could have used ultrasound or MRI) without even telling me the risks of this procedure as far as cancer and radiation is concerned. They just gave me 8 years of radiation in one second and then stuck me with an IV for no reason. I am pretty sure it was because they wanted to educate one of the student "nurses" so they used me as a guinea pig (again, zero informed consent). And the guy jabbed the IV needle into my vein and started wiggling it around until I was in agony! I later developed a blood clot in that vein because he had caused so much damage!

Recently, for some work I have been doing, I have had to look at death certificates and I see one after the other covid, covid, covid, and usually these people are related like elderly husband and wife. I do not have a single doubt in my mind that these people were killed intentionally via the ventilation protocol established by the WHO that was done without any scientific basis whatsoever. They prevented people from even seeing their loved ones when they were treated for "covid," and then killed them. What's crazy is that hospitals were paid the max amount of government money whenever a patient died from covid. So the hospitals were literally incentivized to murder patients and in fact that was their role all along. Hospitals, doctors, they do not practice medicine anymore. They follow orders from higher up, these protocols pushed down by big Pharma and WHO.

The medical system in this country is not merely incompetent, it is sinister and its entire purpose is population control.
 
Last edited:

Starlight

Kingfisher
Woman
Protestant
I agree, and I think many women who are irreligious or "casual Christians" either are not bothered by these elements, or don't wonder the "why"s of it.

As for myself, when I had my first child I would have already said that I was a Christian, but the level of discernment needed to see through these practices was not there. During my second pregnancy, when we hired the midwife, was when I really started exploring these topics. Something about these things just seemed inherently wrong, but there was nothing online that put together all the pieces. While I was upfront about not desiring to take part in these practices, the lie of it all being "optional" decieved me, and I have to admit that I was very foolish to have risked the possibility of hurting my child this way, whether physically or spiritually.


I agree.

Something I would like to add is that reviews on review sites like yelp on these midwives may be skewed in their favor. While I would love to leave a truthful and accurate review about my experiences, my husband cautioned me from doing so, as this woman practices witchcraft, has been in our home and knows where we live and other personal information, yet we know virtually nothing about her (except her name and that she's "licensed"). It's not unthinkable that other women who have had negative experiences have also remained silent, especially as there is a lot of brainwashing involved.



I'm not sure what you mean by "this" because you quoted my entire reply to you, but I'll try to make sense of it from the context of the rest of your reply. But first, I just had to address that if doctors do engage in these manipulation tactics, that midwives also engage in, in the end it is the hospital that has the surgical equipment if it becomes necessary. And most of the midwife manipulation is in the form of don't do xyz that makes medical sense, but instead engage in cannibalism or sexual perversion.


I agree that the system is flawed, and I know firsthand that doctors can try to rush things in order to get to their next whatever. It's not something I had mentioned in my original birth story post, but that doctor had informed us that she had somewhere to be and we could use the forceps to speed it up. But I declined, and was not forced, though it did make me very angry at the medical system and was one of the factors in seeking out an alternative.

Also, I don't know how old that story is, or if it's different in every state, but I will say that after they cancelled the c section that I had originally been scheduled for they absolutely refused to give me a c section, no matter what. Apparently hospitals are trying to have the lowest c section rates possible for whatever bureaucratic reasons, and now it can be difficult for a woman to get a c section unless absolutely necessary. As I said, location may play a part.


You're right, there is no way of knowing after the fact. But I do know that without continuous monitoring (which they can't do at home) there is no way of knowing if the baby is in distress. So therefore, no way of knowing if you need to shift positions.

Just going by my two hospital birth experiences, if the heart rate was dropping the first plan of action was to shift to different positions and see if it recovered. It was definitely the opposite of "ok, let's go to surgery!"

It also makes a difference when the heartrate is dropping, relative to the contractions (early, variable, and late decelerations) which is impossible to determine with a hand-held doppler or worse an old school fetoscope, which is what homebirth midwives have.

"Intermittent variable decelerations are generally not associated with adverse perinatal outcomes, and they often do not require treatment. Recurrent variable decelerations, where the decelerations occur with 50% or more of the contractions, are less common and more concerning."


"The primary etiology of a late declaration is found to be uteroplacental insufficiency. Decreased blood flow to the placenta causes a reduced amount of blood and oxygen to the fetus."


I agree that childbirth is inherently risky. Midwives say otherwise.

At a hospital, there is a higher risk of having a cesarean (which is common sense since surgery cannot be performed at home), and higher episiotomy risk or instrumental delivery. But at home there is a 3 times higher chance of the baby dying and even higher chance than that of the baby suffering brain damage.

From link:

"A meta-analysis of outcomes from home births and hospital births shows that women who give birth at home do have fewer procedures and complications—but their newborns are three times more likely to die."



And if anyone wants to read a more "scholarly" publication:

"Of concern, this investigation identified a doubling and tripling of the neonatal mortality rate overall and among nonanomalous offspring, respectively, in planned home compared to planned hospital births. This finding is particularly robust considering the homogeneity of the observation across studies. It is especially striking as women planning home births were of similar and often lower obstetric risk than those planning hospital births."

"Women, particularly low-risk parous individuals, choosing home birth are in large part successful in achieving their goal of delivering with less morbidity and medical intervention than experienced during hospital-based childbirth. Of significant concern, these apparent benefits are associated with a near tripling of the neonatal mortality rate among nonanomalous infants."


Because they want their baby to have a higher chance of not dying a preventable death?

And honestly, that statement sounds just as much as "birth shaming" as me saying that woman was foolish for valuing her experience over safety while having high risk factors. Just saying.
Also, totally unrelated, but in the words of Hemingway, “Try to say more with fewer words.”
 
Last edited:

Pray_Everyday

Robin
Woman
Other Christian
I actually read through the sources you picked and the ones from the Slate article had good chunk of the links 404’d. So it was hard to follow up on their claims. The one from AJOG is over a decade old…

I’ll submit some more contemporary relevant research:
This study was peer-reviewed and published in The Lancet

This first link you posted does not include any data - no charts, databases, or even any hard figures. All we're told is "no statistically different risk". Rather than a study, it is a review of previously collected data. Also, considering you claimed the study I linked was old at 2010, I'm surprised you didn't catch this part:

"This study, which is the first systematic review and meta-analyses to use a previously published, peer-reviewed protocol for the research, used data from 21 studies published since 1990 comparing home and hospital birth outcomes in Sweden, New Zealand, England, Netherlands, Japan, Australia, Canada and the U.S. Outcomes from approximately 500,000 intended home births were compared to similar numbers of births intended to occur in hospital in these eight countries."


We have no way of knowing if the majority of these births were in the European countries, Canada, or Australia, nor what the outcomes were. I have not been disputing that it is safer in Europe, where "midwife" usually means "college trained NURSE midwife" and the midwives are integrated into the health care system, charting properly, probably not engaging in sex acts with the women, etc.


And another
Good, an actual study.

Some issues:
- This study does not tell us the mortality rates for planned low risk hospital births so we can compare. While the planned home birth rate appears low at .57/1000, or 6/10,609 we cannot assess if it actually is low without the hospital data to compare.

In the study I provided we are told both rates .15 v .04 or (23 deaths/15,633 home births) v (14 deaths/31,999 hospital births).
A rate of .15 will appear low, until it is contrasted with a rate of .04.

I would also like to see data of NICU admission rates of low risk, full term healthy newborns born at the hospital for comparison's sake.

I also noticed that 13% of the births were transfered and were actually born at the hospital. Were these 1455 babies included in the original 10,609 figure, or are we looking at a slightly higher death rate when we look at only the babies that were *actually* born at home, not *planned* to be born at home.


- The study only included midwives (including Nurse Midwives) that are part of the Midwives Association of Washington State. Here it is in their own words:

"However, our findings must be interpreted in the context of several limitations. Because some Washington midwives are not Midwives' Association of Washington State members or do not participate in data collection, our study population is representative of this organization's members and may not include all planned community births in the state during our study period.... however, results reported in this study may not be generalizable to states with different legislation, training, and integration of community midwives.

Improving the integration of community midwives in the United States could be important to achieve comparable outcomes in other U.S. states."


And I actually agree with this. If homebirth midwives had to collaborate with the medical system and training was standardized, instead of running unregulated clandestine operations and fearmongering against medical interventions, it could be much safer. Unfortunately, their main "selling points" are that they are autonomous, don't require medical testing (so women often don't realize they're high risk, and therefore the findings of these studies don't even apply to them), are mostly focused on the women not risking out "on paper", complications are seen as a "variation of normal" and are too busy focusing on occult or novelty "treatments" to be concerned with improving safety.

Also, I think we’re both arguing for the same thing, which is better care for pregnant women and their babies during childbirth. It shouldn’t have to be an either/or decision… That’s all I’m saying…
Originally I was stating the fact that women using their platform to endorse this practice without giving any of the associated risks is irresponsible and negligent. Especially, someone mentioning high risk factors and past complications but doing this anyway. If the information being presented is one-sided I felt a duty to fill in the gaps.

The comment was meant “in general” which is why I wrote “anyone” and not any group specifically. Seriously, have you not been paying attention? It’s not 2019 anymore…
And "in general" was a judgment on "anyone" that checks themself into a hospital...
If people want to refuse medical care when there's an innocent life at stake and assume the risks that's their choice, but to advice others to do so is a problem.

No idea why you want to involve another poster and his unrelated to childbirth experience in this either. I know hospitals are sketchy - they killed my father, pre-"covid". But I also know that if it wasn't for the hospital my child would be dead, no thanks to that "midwife".

Also, totally unrelated, but in the words of Hemingway, “Try to say more with fewer words.”
Here's a thought: If my posts are too lengthy for you, how about you don't read them? No one is forcing you to...
 

Atlas Shrugged

Woodpecker
Woman
Protestant
This can be summed up as sometimes hospitals can be lifesavers, other times lying manipulators that could end up hurting you. Home births can go well or go bad. I would still push for a home birth and if I knew then what I know now I sure would do a home birth with a normal midwife or doula. I think the medical establishment was more trustworthy decades ago. Now not so much. I understand anyones hesitation about hospitals. Especially when it comes to childbirth. This is how God built us. It should never be seen as well I could die. You could also die walking to corner market by getting run over. Of course everything in life comes with a risk but I don’t see pregnancy as inherently risky. Unless someone has issues already.
 

Kitty Tantrum

Kingfisher
Woman
Catholic
That is cannibalism. And disgusting.
Disgusting, yes.

Cannibalism? I am not so sure.

The placenta is not part of your body. It is not part of your baby's body. It is a byproduct of a process, expelled as waste.

It is no less reckless to paint a potentially life-saving emergency measure as heinous sin just because one finds it distasteful and can drum up an argument based on personal interpretation and conflation of things - than it is to paint all hospitals as Illuminati Death Temples and tell women Christians shouldn't ever go there because there are better options.
 

Pray_Everyday

Robin
Woman
Other Christian
with a normal midwife or doula
This begs the question: what is a "normal" midwife? Are we talking a college educated registered nurse midwife with full hospital back up support, or are we talking a largely uneducated woman who idolizes Ina May Gaskin and her methods? If by "normal" we mean "the standard or the common type", then in most US states we mean the latter kind.

You're free to do as you wish with your (hypothetical) childbirth, but no, using that second type of midwife is nowhere as low risk as a hospital. That's just the facts.

Especially when it comes to childbirth. This is how God built us.
We are in a fallen state. Also, the Bible contains examples of women dying in childbirth ( Gen 35:16-18, 1Sam4:19-20), so we could say that death by childbirth is also part of our fallen human state.
It should never be seen as well I could die.
For what it's worth, I prayed to God constantly that He save my child over me. As a mother I would willingly die for my children.
You could also die walking to corner market by getting run
To use this analogy, it would be the difference between walking on the sidewalk facing traffic versus walking in the road while wearing dark clothing at night. Yes, something could happen either way, but one scenario maximizes risk. People don't wear seatbelts because accidents happen to them daily; it's just another precaution. To each their own, but it's a lie to say both are equally inherently unsafe.

I don’t see pregnancy as inherently risky. Unless someone has issues already
But outside of these studies midwives don't screen properly. How are medically untrained clients/women supposed to know if they're high risk if the "professionals" they're hiring are not risk assessing properly?

As I mentioned in one of my posts months ago, I was having glucose tolerance issues. Rather than risk me out the midwife pressured me to stop testing myself (I ignored her advice, many women won't because they trust these women).

She asked me vaguely if I "have preclampsia symptoms" while subtly shaking her head at me. How would I know if she never once described them or elaborated any details? Thankfully I was also seeing an OB, so I knew I didn't have preclampsia.

She never weighed me. Unlike many women, I struggle with weight gain during pregnancy. Even though she acknowledged my belly was small, she still never tracked my weight gain, nor suggested it as a reason for risking out.

I asked, just out of curiosity, what was the oldest age she would consider a client. She said no limit. There was also no limit for gestational age to transfer As women get older, their placentas start to fail at a younger gestational age - a 20 yr old woman being 42 weeks is not as dangerous as in a woman in her 30's, or worse, 40's. But this information is not shared with the clients.

Lastly - and this is just my personal research and logic, after the fact - I have reason to believe that it is impossible or unlikely for me to go into labor, broken water or not. I've researched much about the synergistic link between oxitocin and melatonin and I believe that my body may have a glandular deficiency in producing enough of one or both of these hormones (the cause of my lifelong chronic insomnia). This alone would make me a high risk patient, with induction medically necessary, but I was never informed that this could even be a risk.

TLDR: many women have "issues" but they are unaware, and many midwives will either sweep it under the rug or are too incompetent/uneducated to think it matters.

Disgusting, yes.

Cannibalism? I am not so sure.

The placenta is not part of your body. It is not part of your baby's body. It is a byproduct of a process, expelled as waste.
It is an organ, albeit a temporary organ. It contains the baby's genome.

Interestingly, I found a source that considers cannibalism moral that does consider placental eating to be cannibalism.

From link:

"While there is a maternal component, placental tissue is mainly derived from the fertilized egg and carries the fetus’s genome. So technically, wouldn’t eating the placenta fit the definition of cannibalism: eating the flesh of another individual of your own species?
...

I didn’t eat my placentas because I saw no reason to do so, but I don’t object on principle. Even if placentophagia qualifies as cannibalism, I don’t see any rational objection to cannibalism per se, as long as it doesn’t involve unethical practices like murder."


It amazes me if people can't see that popularizing the consumption of human organs is just one more step to normalizing fully acknowledged cannibalism.

It is no less reckless to paint a potentially life-saving emergency measure as heinous sin just because one finds it distasteful and can drum up an argument based on personal interpretation and conflation of things - than it is to paint all hospitals as Illuminati Death Temples and tell women Christians shouldn't ever go there because there are better options.
How should Deuteronomy 28:57 be interpreted in the context of God cursing Israel from 28:15 onward? Perhaps an Orthodox member could clear this up so it's not just my "personal interpretation". What does the Orthodox Study Bible say about this passage?

Not to mention that the consuming of blood is prohibited before the Law, under the Law, and to new Gentile Christian converts not bound under the Law.
 

Kitty Tantrum

Kingfisher
Woman
Catholic
How should Deuteronomy 28:57 be interpreted in the context of God cursing Israel from 28:15 onward? Perhaps an Orthodox member could clear this up so it's not just my "personal interpretation". What does the Orthodox Study Bible say about this passage?
What I am suggesting is that this is a question for those with sufficient knowledge of the subject - and AUTHORITY.

I would be interested to know if there is a formal stance on this matter given by any church. But when I say by any church, I do not mean the opinions of the laity. What do the Church Fathers say? The priests?

You're using arguments about "genome" - aka whose genetic material is found in the expelled tissue.

You are conflating this with the eating of a person, or a part of a person that is intrinsic to them. This is interpretation.

Cut off someone's hand and eat it? Totally cannibalism.

Cut off someone's hair and eat it? I am less convinced that this qualifies.

Placenta? Well, I'll do what I need to do to make sure I never have a reason to try it. But in a true disaster/emergency type scenario, with no modern medicine available, should a new mother with a slow persistent hemorrhage (worst kind) choose instead to increase her risk of death?

If it's a practice that has actually been condemned formally somewhere in Christendom, that would carry weight with me. The opinion of a woman on the internet does not.
 

Atlas Shrugged

Woodpecker
Woman
Protestant
What I am suggesting is that this is a question for those with sufficient knowledge of the subject - and AUTHORITY.

I would be interested to know if there is a formal stance on this matter given by any church. But when I say by any church, I do not mean the opinions of the laity. What do the Church Fathers say? The priests?

You're using arguments about "genome" - aka whose genetic material is found in the expelled tissue.

You are conflating this with the eating of a person, or a part of a person that is intrinsic to them. This is interpretation.

Cut off someone's hand and eat it? Totally cannibalism.

Cut off someone's hair and eat it? I am less convinced that this qualifies.

Placenta? Well, I'll do what I need to do to make sure I never have a reason to try it. But in a true disaster/emergency type scenario, with no modern medicine available, should a new mother with a slow persistent hemorrhage (worst kind) choose instead to increase her risk of death?

If it's a practice that has actually been condemned formally somewhere in Christendom, that would carry weight with me. The opinion of a woman on the internet does not.
What I mean by normal is someone who is a believer in God and Jesus. If the midwife walks through the door with half a shaved head, body covered in tats and rainbow colored hair I’m probably gonna pass. When I said unless you have risks I meant the woman already knows. Family history or something is already wrong or diagnosed. How many people go on living not knowing they have a condition? I’m sure many do. But they keep going. Yes we are in a fallen world and sinful state but that doesn’t mean God didn’t equip us amazingly for childbirth. Look at how many women died in childbirth in third world countries and look how populated they are. Life keeps going!!!! Trust in our savior. I see it as when you die is when you are supposed to die. God knew before he formed the earth and universe the day, hour, minute and second I will die.
 

Pray_Everyday

Robin
Woman
Other Christian
You're using arguments about "genome" - aka whose genetic material is found in the expelled tissue.

You are conflating this with the eating of a person, or a part of a person that is intrinsic to them. This is interpretation.

Cut off someone's hand and eat it? Totally cannibalism.

Cut off someone's hair and eat it? I am less convinced that this qualifies.
Clearly a placenta with blood and blood vessels is closer to a hand than hair ( though I don't doubt that is unwise to eat more than a trace accidental amount of hair). The life is in the blood (Lev 17:14, Deu12:23)

I wasn't arguing that the presence of genome alone qualifies the organ as an organ, rather than medical waste.

I would be interested to know if there is a formal stance on this matter given by any church. But when I say by any church, I do not mean the opinions of the laity. What do the Church Fathers say? The priests? ... But in a true disaster/emergency type scenario, with no modern medicine available, should a new mother with a slow persistent hemorrhage (worst kind) choose instead to increase her risk of death?
Now you're shifting goalposts from the original question "Is placenta eating cannibalism?" to "In a genuine emergency/apocalyptic scenario with no other chance of survival is cannibalism permissible?"

How do we define "true disaster/emergency"? Is a woman living in our not-yet-collapsed civilization choosing to refuse or seek medical care or to accept synthetic hormones to stop her bleeding truly having an emergency warranting engaging in cannibalism?

How is a slow persistent hemorrhage an emergency under our current civilization conditions?

If secondary postpartum hemorrhage really  is the worst kind (which I'm going to need a source on, as everything I found online indicates primary postpartum hemorrhage is much more common and dangerous), then how is a woman still going to have raw fresh placenta to eat over 24hours after the birth? In a true end of the world scenario I'm assuming no refrigeration. Unless you are suggesting that it should be consumed prophylactically, which would render it no longer an emergency use...

Not to mention that it is only anecdotes from midwife publications that claim this act of cannibalism even serves to stop postpartum hemorrhage.

But, in interest of fairness I did look it up, and it appears that in a true emergency life or death scenario (like a plane crash in the mountains) cannibalism is permissible by the Catholic Church if it does not involve the act of murder.

From a very informal source:

"What is the Church's teaching on cannibalism for survival?


In the case of extreme circumstances like an airplane crash in the middle of nowhere, is it ever acceptable to consume the flesh of the dead for sustenance?

Gotta say, this reminds me of the Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571, a plane crash in the Andes where the dwindling survivors were trapped in the mountains for 72 days. The survivors had to resort to eat the dead bodies of their dead friends and family members, and they made a pact that if any of the survivors died, the others were free to eat their bodies. After the 16 survivors were rescued, they actually confessed that they ate the dead to a Catholic priest, but apparently the priest said that “anthropophagy in extremis” (resorting to eating dead bodies out of survival) was not condemned.
Your question reminds me about the principle of Double Effect (and because I don’t remember too much about it, here’s the article on Wikipedia. The principle of Double Effect was first popularized by St. Thomas Aquinas, who argued that it is morally permissible to perform an action with both good and evil effects, but only if ALL four of its conditions are met:
  • the action, in its nature, must be either good or morally indifferent
  • the evil effect and the good effect must come equally, and the good effect can never come after the evil effect
  • the intention of the action must be for the achieving only the good effect, never the evil effect (likewise, all reasonable measures to avoid or mitigate the evil effect)
  • for allowing the evil effect, there must be a proportionally grave reason for doing so
In the case of cannibalism for survival, at least in the example of Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571, the action the survivors wanted to undergo is to eat to survive (a totally not-evil act, so check), both good and evil effect came equally (they survive by eating but also they eat someone at the same time, check), the survivors only ate for the good effect of surviving (they were very disgusted by literally eating the dead and only did it as a last resort, so check), and there was a proportionally grave reason for eating the dead, (that being that there was nothing else around that was edible to eat, so check). So, under the principle of Double Effect, created by a Saint and tacitly approved by the Church (CCC 2263), cannibalism for survival is a grisly action and I sincerely pray that nobody on earth would be in such a horrible situation to resort to that, but the person you’d be eating has already died, so it is morally permissible.



It is worth noting that St. Thomas Aquinas lived during the 1200s and thus after the Great Schism, so it is unclear to me if his teachings are recognized by the Orthodox Church, and if this act is permissible to Orthodox Christians.

When I said unless you have risks I meant the woman already knows. Family history or something is already wrong or diagnosed. How many people go on living not knowing they have a condition?  I'm sure many do. But they keep going.
Yes, many do, which is why not risk-assessing properly is a problem. The midwife told me she was not worried about me at all because I'm "so healthy". All this meant is that I'm not on prescription meds and within my healthy bmi range. But relevant risk factors were not assessed or ignored, just to not risk out on paper.

Look at how many women died in childbirth in third world countries and look how populated they are
The reason we have less women dying in childbirth in first world countries is because we have more advanced emergency healthcare than say, Africa. The maternal and perinatal mortality rates there are still incredibly high compared to the US, and the West in general.

"The two areas bearing the largest burden of maternal mortality, Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, also had the lowest percentage of births attended by a skilled provider, at just 45% and 41% respectively.[57] Emergency obstetric care is also crucial in preventing maternal mortality by offering services like emergency cesarean sections, blood transfusions, antibiotics for infections and assisted vaginal delivery with forceps or vacuum."



The reason they're so populated is probably because young women are not strongly encouraged to go to college instead of forming families. Those women have more children than western first world women, provided they survive.

Also, something along the lines of "no worries, someone else will keep the human race going if your baby dies a preventable death" is unnaceptable to me. It is irrelevant to me if third world countries are highly populated, that doesn't mean it's fine to risk the life of a baby.

Trust in our savior. I see it as when you die is when you are supposed to die. God knew before he formed the earth and universe the day, hour, minute and second I will die.
I think I didn't make it clear that I was not afraid to die. What I was concerned with was my baby dying because of my stupid choices. During the 60+ hours between my water breaking and my baby being born all I did was pray for my baby to be born safely. God answered, and I grew much in my faith. It is a miracle that he spared us any harm and this was not as harsh a lesson as it could have been. All praise and glory to God.

And, I don't know what the Orthodox teaching is, but I believe there is a free will component. Our actions make a difference in the outcome, or else why do anything at all. That outlook seems "Calvinistic" to me, and it does not reflect my views, nor do I believe it is biblical, as evidenced by examples such as 1Sam23:11-14 (the Lord tells David he will be delivered to Saul, but David takes action and is not delivered to Saul). So yeah, I could have refused to go to the hospital and my baby not have made it, but in prayer the Lord told my husband that we were to trust Him and go to the hospital. Against the advice of the midwife who kept saying this is normal, to keep waiting and that all hospitals want to do is give you an unnecessary c section.
 

Atlas Shrugged

Woodpecker
Woman
Protestant
Clearly a placenta with blood and blood vessels is closer to a hand than hair ( though I don't doubt that is unwise to eat more than a trace accidental amount of hair). The life is in the blood (Lev 17:14, Deu12:23)

I wasn't arguing that the presence of genome alone qualifies the organ as an organ, rather than medical waste.


Now you're shifting goalposts from the original question "Is placenta eating cannibalism?" to "In a genuine emergency/apocalyptic scenario with no other chance of survival is cannibalism permissible?"

How do we define "true disaster/emergency"? Is a woman living in our not-yet-collapsed civilization choosing to refuse or seek medical care or to accept synthetic hormones to stop her bleeding truly having an emergency warranting engaging in cannibalism?

How is a slow persistent hemorrhage an emergency under our current civilization conditions?

If secondary postpartum hemorrhage really  is the worst kind (which I'm going to need a source on, as everything I found online indicates primary postpartum hemorrhage is much more common and dangerous), then how is a woman still going to have raw fresh placenta to eat over 24hours after the birth? In a true end of the world scenario I'm assuming no refrigeration. Unless you are suggesting that it should be consumed prophylactically, which would render it no longer an emergency use...

Not to mention that it is only anecdotes from midwife publications that claim this act of cannibalism even serves to stop postpartum hemorrhage.

But, in interest of fairness I did look it up, and it appears that in a true emergency life or death scenario (like a plane crash in the mountains) cannibalism is permissible by the Catholic Church if it does not involve the act of murder.

From a very informal source:

"What is the Church's teaching on cannibalism for survival?


In the case of extreme circumstances like an airplane crash in the middle of nowhere, is it ever acceptable to consume the flesh of the dead for sustenance?

Gotta say, this reminds me of the Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571, a plane crash in the Andes where the dwindling survivors were trapped in the mountains for 72 days. The survivors had to resort to eat the dead bodies of their dead friends and family members, and they made a pact that if any of the survivors died, the others were free to eat their bodies. After the 16 survivors were rescued, they actually confessed that they ate the dead to a Catholic priest, but apparently the priest said that “anthropophagy in extremis” (resorting to eating dead bodies out of survival) was not condemned.
Your question reminds me about the principle of Double Effect (and because I don’t remember too much about it, here’s the article on Wikipedia. The principle of Double Effect was first popularized by St. Thomas Aquinas, who argued that it is morally permissible to perform an action with both good and evil effects, but only if ALL four of its conditions are met:
  • the action, in its nature, must be either good or morally indifferent
  • the evil effect and the good effect must come equally, and the good effect can never come after the evil effect
  • the intention of the action must be for the achieving only the good effect, never the evil effect (likewise, all reasonable measures to avoid or mitigate the evil effect)
  • for allowing the evil effect, there must be a proportionally grave reason for doing so
In the case of cannibalism for survival, at least in the example of Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571, the action the survivors wanted to undergo is to eat to survive (a totally not-evil act, so check), both good and evil effect came equally (they survive by eating but also they eat someone at the same time, check), the survivors only ate for the good effect of surviving (they were very disgusted by literally eating the dead and only did it as a last resort, so check), and there was a proportionally grave reason for eating the dead, (that being that there was nothing else around that was edible to eat, so check). So, under the principle of Double Effect, created by a Saint and tacitly approved by the Church (CCC 2263), cannibalism for survival is a grisly action and I sincerely pray that nobody on earth would be in such a horrible situation to resort to that, but the person you’d be eating has already died, so it is morally permissible.



It is worth noting that St. Thomas Aquinas lived during the 1200s and thus after the Great Schism, so it is unclear to me if his teachings are recognized by the Orthodox Church, and if this act is permissible to Orthodox Christians.


Yes, many do, which is why not risk-assessing properly is a problem. The midwife told me she was not worried about me at all because I'm "so healthy". All this meant is that I'm not on prescription meds and within my healthy bmi range. But relevant risk factors were not assessed or ignored, just to not risk out on paper.


The reason we have less women dying in childbirth in first world countries is because we have more advanced emergency healthcare than say, Africa. The maternal and perinatal mortality rates there are still incredibly high compared to the US, and the West in general.

"The two areas bearing the largest burden of maternal mortality, Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, also had the lowest percentage of births attended by a skilled provider, at just 45% and 41% respectively.[57] Emergency obstetric care is also crucial in preventing maternal mortality by offering services like emergency cesarean sections, blood transfusions, antibiotics for infections and assisted vaginal delivery with forceps or vacuum."



The reason they're so populated is probably because young women are not strongly encouraged to go to college instead of forming families. Those women have more children than western first world women, provided they survive.

Also, something along the lines of "no worries, someone else will keep the human race going if your baby dies a preventable death" is unnaceptable to me. It is irrelevant to me if third world countries are highly populated, that doesn't mean it's fine to risk the life of a baby.


I think I didn't make it clear that I was not afraid to die. What I was concerned with was my baby dying because of my stupid choices. During the 60+ hours between my water breaking and my baby being born all I did was pray for my baby to be born safely. God answered, and I grew much in my faith. It is a miracle that he spared us any harm and this was not as harsh a lesson as it could have been. All praise and glory to God.

And, I don't know what the Orthodox teaching is, but I believe there is a free will component. Our actions make a difference in the outcome, or else why do anything at all. That outlook seems "Calvinistic" to me, and it does not reflect my views, nor do I believe it is biblical, as evidenced by examples such as 1Sam23:11-14 (the Lord tells David he will be delivered to Saul, but David takes action and is not delivered to Saul). So yeah, I could have refused to go to the hospital and my baby not have made it, but in prayer the Lord told my husband that we were to trust Him and go to the hospital. Against the advice of the midwife who kept saying this is normal, to keep waiting and that all hospitals want to do is give you an unnecessary c section.

I understand where you are coming from. Let me know if I’m wrong but it seems that you had a bad experience and are against home births and midwives now. It’s wonderful that hospitals can help you and anyone else. I also think for non medical emergencies like a birth for example, that can also be done at home. If I’m wrong I’m sorry and I do understand how life experience can change views. I will just never see birth as a medical “problem”. I’m happy you and your babies are well!!!! Again I am not against giving birth in hospitals but women need to know a few things. One don’t cut the cord until after your baby turns lobster red then goes back to normal color, let the placenta come out naturally and don’t do the eye drops. Unfortunately hospitals do rush you out to fast and that’s wrong. But I also won’t tell a woman she is wrong for wanting a home birth surrounded by family. Both are fine.
 

Kitty Tantrum

Kingfisher
Woman
Catholic
Clearly a placenta with blood and blood vessels is closer to
Clearly... because you feel like it is?
I wasn't arguing that the presence of genome alone qualifies the organ as an organ, rather than medical waste.
If it is not medical waste, then who is using it after it is expelled from the mother's body?
Now you're shifting goalposts from the original question "Is placenta eating cannibalism?" to "In a genuine emergency/apocalyptic scenario with no other chance of survival is cannibalism permissible?"
Nope. I did not. Try again.

I think it is gross, but I do NOT think it's cannibalism, and this was a very weak way of trying to make it look like I had conceded to your so-far-authoritatively-baseless definitions.
 

Kitty Tantrum

Kingfisher
Woman
Catholic
If secondary postpartum hemorrhage really  is the worst kind (which I'm going to need a source on, as everything I found online indicates primary postpartum hemorrhage is much more common and dangerous), then how is a woman still going to have raw fresh placenta to eat over 24hours after the birth? In a true end of the world scenario I'm assuming no refrigeration. Unless you are suggesting that it should be consumed prophylactically, which would render it no longer an emergency use...
You introduced the terms "primary" and "secondary." Not me.

I said slow and persistent. What I was told by all of my doctors and midwives is that women regularly freak out immediately after birth when they are bleeding large volumes in a very short time (big gushes). But that this is partly normal AND typically stemmed by nursing, and that the big danger to look out for is the kind of bleeding that isn't enough to look super scary, but persists - because you can lose a lot more blood over a few hours that way if untreated.

IF I were talking about "secondary hemorrhage," you'd have a point.
 

Pray_Everyday

Robin
Woman
Other Christian
Let me know if I’m wrong but it seems that you had a bad experience and are against home births and midwives now.
I would say it's more along the lines of I had a bad experience and that made me question  why it happened, how it could have been prevented, and pushed me along the path to further research the matter of why is it so strongly discouraged to discuss the negatives (both spiritual and physical) of this, and all related, practices. To wonder why it is presented as a safer choice, with complete disregard for factual information saying otherwise, among people on "both sides" of the political spectrum, among believers and atheists alike. Furthermore, to ask why is it that people that are able to discern the wicked or occult agendas underlying some "secular" practices (say yoga, for example), or that know about eugenics and depopulation, somehow turn a blind eye to this.
Again I am not against giving birth in hospitals but women need to know a few things. One don’t cut the cord until after your baby turns lobster red then goes back to normal color, let the placenta come out naturally and don’t do the eye drops.
At both hospitals the staff was very accommodating regarding delayed cord clamping and placed my babies on me without delay with the cord still attached. Zero pushback for declining the eye drops (and hep b shot). Also zero pushback for declining a bath, and asking for the vernix to not be wiped off. Also, for anyone that cares about such matters, they did not force me to push on my back, though that is the position that worked best for my body.

I would also add that women need to know that while the hospital staff can sometimes be pushy, you can decline interventions and internal exams, ask them to not speak to you during contractions, ask them to not offer pain meds unless you ask. It helps immensely to have all your preferences written down, and to have a trusted individual with you that will help enforce your preferences.

And, if possible, avoid "teaching hospitals", but if your insurance doesn't permit then just be firm with them that you don't want students or residents to work on you or be present, if that is your preference.
Clearly... because you feel like it is?
Any person can see that a placenta looks like a human internal organ and not hair. We could also discuss the types of cells, types of tissues, etc, but there is really no point as you will just try to find another way to argue.

Apologies, everyone. I couldnt figure out how to put this in a spoiler tag.

Screenshot_20220825-233942.jpg

It has nothing to do with my feelings.
If it is not medical waste, then who is using it after it is expelled from the mother's body
An amputated hand is also medical waste, but you agreed that consuming it would be cannibalism. Here's the quote to refresh your memory:
Cut off someone's hand and eat it? Totally cannibalism.
Now regarding the shifting goalposts...
Nope. I did not. Try again.

I think it is gross, but I do NOT think it's cannibalism, and this was a very weak way of trying to make it look like I had conceded to your so-far-authoritatively-baseless definitions.
Yes, you did. I am well aware that YOU do not consider it to be cannibalism. But rather than make it only about your opinion and your choices, you said:
But in a true disaster/emergency type scenario, with no modern medicine available, should a new mother with a slow persistent hemorrhage (worst kind) choose instead to increase her risk of death?
Which turned into a matter of what is permissible in order to survive under extreme emergency circumstances.

The thing is, I have zero interest in changing your mind about the topic. One of the blessings of this forum is that posts are unable to be deleted, so as long as all the facts are laid out for other members and lurkers to see, I couldn't care less what your personal opinion is. I'm not interested in debating for the sake of debating, or to "win" an argument.

I would actually like to thank you for your posts. Before it would have just been hearsay from me that midwives would actually advise/pressure women to consume raw placenta, but thanks to your posts, and your obstinate defense of this practice, others can see that my allegations were valid.

And I'm still waiting for sources that say this is more than something made up by midwives, and that this act (of cannibalism) actually does serve to stop emergency hemorrhage in a scenario where there's no other options. (And not just part of their pseudoscience about how consuming it helps with, among other thing, energy, recovery, future menopause, depression etc)
You introduced the terms "primary" and "secondary." Not me.

I said slow and persistent.
Yes, I introduced "primary" and "secondary" because we needed something more precise than "slow persistent (the worst kind)" to know what we are discussing.
What I was told by all of my doctors and midwives is that women regularly freak out immediately after birth when they are bleeding large volumes in a very short time (big gushes). But that this is partly normal AND typically stemmed by nursing, and that the big danger to look out for is the kind of bleeding that isn't enough to look super scary, but persists - because you can lose a lot more blood over a few hours that way if untreated.
So we're discussing bleeding that occurs after the initial postpartum period but over the next few  hours. Seems like plenty of time for a woman (under our current civilization conditions) to get some medical aid. We went from in your initial post you saying:

only mentioned it as an option if something happened and I ended up delivering and bleeding too much and she wasn't there with her supplies
implying immediate postpartum hemorrhage after a precipitous birth, to now talking about "slow persistent" hemorrhage. Different thing, plenty of time to get medical aid. And if it truly is an emergency, we already read what someone with more authority has to say about it.

Look, it's clear neither of us is going to change her mind. As I've already said, arguing for the sake of arguing and winning arguments is not my hobby, and I genuinely have better things to do.

I have provided plenty of information for anyone who is interested in the topic to review at their leisure. And if anyone has anything else to add I welcome their input.
 
Last edited:

Kitty Tantrum

Kingfisher
Woman
Catholic
I would say it's more along the lines of I had a bad experience and that made me question  why it happened, how it could have been prevented, and pushed me along the path to further research the matter of why is it so strongly discouraged to discuss the negatives (both spiritual and physical) of this, and all related, practices. To wonder why it is presented as a safer choice, with complete disregard for factual information saying otherwise, among people on "both sides" of the political spectrum, among believers and atheists alike. Furthermore, to ask why is it that people that are able to discern the wicked or occult agendas underlying some "secular" practices (say yoga, for example), or that know about eugenics and depopulation, somehow turn a blind eye to this.

At both hospitals the staff was very accommodating regarding delayed cord clamping and placed my babies on me without delay with the cord still attached. Zero pushback for declining the eye drops (and hep b shot). Also zero pushback for declining a bath, and asking for the vernix to not be wiped off. Also, for anyone that cares about such matters, they did not force me to push on my back, though that is the position that worked best for my body.

I would also add that women need to know that while the hospital staff can sometimes be pushy, you can decline interventions and internal exams, ask them to not speak to you during contractions, ask them to not offer pain meds unless you ask. It helps immensely to have all your preferences written down, and to have a trusted individual with you that will help enforce your preferences.

And, if possible, avoid "teaching hospitals", but if your insurance doesn't permit then just be firm with them that you don't want students or residents to work on you or be present, if that is your preference.

Any person can see that a placenta looks like a human internal organ and not hair. We could also discuss the types of cells, types of tissues, etc, but there is really no point as you will just try to find another way to argue.

Apologies, everyone. I couldnt figure out how to put this in a spoiler tag.

View attachment 47339

It has nothing to do with my feelings.

An amputated hand is also medical waste, but you agreed that consuming it would be cannibalism. Here's the quote to refresh your memory:

Now regarding the shifting goalposts...

Yes, you did. I am well aware that YOU do not consider it to be cannibalism. But rather than make it only about your opinion and your choices, you said:

Which turned into a matter of what is permissible in order to survive under extreme emergency circumstances.

The thing is, I have zero interest in changing your mind about the topic. One of the blessings of this forum is that posts are unable to be deleted, so as long as all the facts are laid out for other members and lurkers to see, I couldn't care less what your personal opinion is. I'm not interested in debating for the sake of debating, or to "win" an argument.

I would actually like to thank you for your posts. Before it would have just been hearsay from me that midwives would actually advise/pressure women to consume raw placenta, but thanks to your posts, and your obstinate defense of this practice, others can see that my allegations were valid.

And I'm still waiting for sources that say this is more than something made up by midwives, and that this act (of cannibalism) actually does serve to stop emergency hemorrhage in a scenario where there's no other options. (And not just part of their pseudoscience about how consuming it helps with, among other thing, energy, recovery, future menopause, depression etc)

Yes, I introduced "primary" and "secondary" because we needed something more precise than "slow persistent (the worst kind)" to know what we are discussing.

So we're discussing bleeding that occurs after the initial postpartum period but over the next few  hours. Seems like plenty of time for a woman (under our current civilization conditions) to get some medical aid. We went from in your initial post you saying:


implying immediate postpartum hemorrhage after a precipitous birth, to now talking about "slow persistent" hemorrhage. Different thing, plenty of time to get medical aid. And if it truly is an emergency, we already read what someone with more authority has to say about it.

Look, it's clear neither of us is going to change her mind. As I've already said, arguing for the sake of arguing and winning arguments is not my hobby, and I genuinely have better things to do.

I have provided plenty of information for anyone who is interested in the topic to review at their leisure. And if anyone has anything else to add I welcome their input.
You have some emotional issues preventing you from understanding and dealing with the substance of what I am actually saying.

This IS understandable given what you've been through, but is not an effective place from which to argue, debate, discuss, etc. in an honest way.

You are (incorrectly) re-interpreting and otherwise revising/editing the things I say in order to "refute" them. I don't have any patience for that.

If anyone finds an authoritative Christian source outlining that consumption of a small portion of afterbirth tissue falls under the same classification of behavior as killing and eating people, as was explicitly condemned by God, I'd be quite interested to take a look.

God bless.

(Edit: oops, didn't mean to quote the entire post; my 10 year old tablet doesn't handle this stuff well.)
 

Atlas Shrugged

Woodpecker
Woman
Protestant
Pray everyday…. That picture reminded me of a coworker. Gross lab stuff. She was carrying a huge tray of bloody placentas in formalin. She dropped it and it splashed everywhere including her mouth. Guess what. 20 years later and she is still alive. I would definitely vomit though if that was me. My splashes were small. Gross but small. So your placenta pic made me lol. Thanks.
 

Kitty Tantrum

Kingfisher
Woman
Catholic
(FWIW I do not promote or condone the routine consumption of afterbirth, and it IS a stretch to imagine a scenario where it would be needed. But I also do not promote or condone the teaching of personal interpretations as though they are established Christian Doctrine. That's my main point.)
 

messaggera

Pelican
Woman
Other Christian
Placentophagia suggests paganism.
Placentophagia (consuming the placenta) has historically not been a common practice among humans. Over the past few decades the practice has gained attention as more women, particularly educated, middle-class, White American women, choose to partake in this practice. Purported benefits of placentophagia include pain relief, increased breast milk production, and decreased risk of postpartum depression; however, there is a lack of evidence to support these claims.


Practiced by “educated, middle-class, White American women.” Why is that?

You have some emotional issues preventing you from understanding and dealing with the substance of what I am actually saying.

This IS understandable given what you've been through, but is not an effective place from which to argue, debate, discuss, etc. in an honest way.

@Pray_Everyday has never presented herself as one whose emotions override her logic. She comes across as credible in her content and presented research.

What makes her contributions appealing is that she does not place herself in the center of the topic, but rather provides solid substance to the conversation.
 
Top