3 ms·
Except the numbers that aren't bogus seem to suggest that birthing at home can be much more dangerous for mothers and children. I'm not saying that there's no
by Vraxx 10y ago
Except the numbers that aren't bogus seem to suggest that birthing at home can be much more dangerous for mothers and children. I'm not saying that there's no room for improvement at the hospital, there always will be, but when we don't use fake numbers your point doesn't hold water. I'll refer to another user's comment in this article's thread for the citation.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11724332 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11724332
- brianwawok 10y agoWalking is much more dangerous than being carried in a litter, yet we let people do it all the time. Drinking a hot beverage is much more dangerous than drinking a cold beverage. Life is full of dangers and risks. Why should birth be any different? I could post many stories of people who had their first kid in a hospital and had a horrible experience, ends up getting a C section when not really needed, etc (See american C-section rates vs European for example). Then they chose to have a kid at home and had a 100x better experience and a more healthy baby (due to lack of C section and all the problems that leads to).
- carc 10y agoI've heard the exact same argument from an anti-vaccer :)
- stcredzero 10y agoWhat's bad about anti-vaxxers isn't that they weigh relative risks and make a decision. What's bad is that they spread wildly inaccurate information about what those risks are, which causes people to make faulty decisions that increase the risks for others in the community. What you are doing here, is glossing over the underlying logic and falsely reasoning by resemblances. I find this sort of false reasoning flat-out stupid. It needs to be called out so others do not imitate it. (Which is a more meaningful resemblance to anti-vaxxers your comment is exhibiting.)