Help me talk over how many children to have.

[MeaganS]

Some of you may remember back when I was pregnant with my second DD that I asked about VBAC. I worked really hard, educated myself, and did Hypnobabies, but in the end I ended up having another c-section. I'm at peace with that and feel like it was necessary. I was never one to need the "birth experience," it was all for my health, and it turned out the repeat c-section was the best option with that pregnancy.

 

Now, however, we are trying to plan out the rest of our family. Both my husband and I are from large families and are both the oldest children. I always assumed I'd have a large family as well, large to me being 5 or more. My husband feels strongly that I not try for another vbac, and I'm not even sure I could find someone willing to do a VBA2C around here, so that's not an option and I'm not willing to give birth outside a hospital at this time. This means that future births will need to be c-sections.

 

From what I've found, the risk of complications go up exponentially with every c-sections and although a lot of it is individual, but I'm struggling anyways. Everything I've read says no more than 3 or 4 c-sections. So we're trying to decide whether to have one more child or two. I have mixed feelings about this. From my perspective, only three children seems like such a small family, but it is also very appealing. With only three children, I could do a lot of the things with my family that my family couldn't do growing up. I think my personality works best with fewer people, meaning I'm a "one great friend is better than 5 good friends" kind of person, and that may translate well into my parenting style. Homeschooling would be so much easier, etc. So even though there are many pros, I feel crazy guilty about stopping at 3 kids for some reason and don't want to do it just to be selfish.

 

On the other hand, the risks of 4 c-sections are very high. From what I've found, the risk of a hysterectomy with a 4th c-section is 2.41%. The risk of a blood transfusion is 3.65%. Those combined with other very high risks, makes my husband very hesitant to allow me to try for four. I'm fairly certain that if I pushed the issue, though, he'd let me.

 

Sorry for rambling, but I guess I mostly just wanted some btdt perspectives, not necessarily to tell me that it's ok to go one way or the other, but more just to talk about this with me. If I decide to only have 3 children, I sort of want to know before the last one is born so I can enjoy it. Oh, and I'm only 25 and will probably be trying for our next within the next year, so anyone who was done having babies really early, like by 26 years old are also perspectives I'd like to hear. How do those of you from large families and from cultures where large families are expected both from others and from yourself deal with having 3 or less children without feeling guilty?

[cathmom]

I know someone who has had six, I think, and she's healthy.

[Susan in TX]

I think I would make the decision one child/c-section at a time. I see no reason why you shouldn't have a third child. If that pregnancy and delivery goes well, and the Dr says it is safe for you to have another one, then you can decide if you want to try for four. I know there have been women who have had multiple (4+) c-sections with no problems, but it really is an individual thing, as are all pregnancies and deliveries, and even natural birth has risks.

 

Susan in TX

[Ester Maria]

This might be an unpopular response to some people, but I firmly believe that one should have only as many children as they can successfully parent (on all levels: from the emotional one, the factor of how much time you can dedicate to each child, to more 'down-to-Earth' factors such as financial ones and how many children you can successfully parent from that point of view, and finally, to the health factor of the mother, other children, etc.). The more the merrier, I say, but ONLY if you actually have the tools (emotional, physical, health, financial, space, etc.) to raise happy and healthy children with a reasonable amount of investing into their education.

 

Personally - and this is exclusively a personal preference, not a "recipe" for anyone - I would err on the safe side. I have three children myself, but as much as I catch myself wanting one more, realistically, I know that three are my limit in most of the above categories. I doubt *I personally* would feel like a successful parent with managing the needs of five or six children while still having some sort of personal life (which is important to me and may or may not be important to others). Even only three are overwhelming for me at times. This is not to say that, should more kids "happen", we would not adapt - one adapts to everything and ultimately finds joy and positives in any situation - but a priori, I would go with the lower end of the acceptable number of children for me rather than with the higher end, especially if I intuitively knew I function better with fewer people around me. YMMV.

[Carrie12345]

Oh, and I'm only 25 and will probably be trying for our next within the next year, so anyone who was done having babies really early, like by 26 years old are also perspectives I'd like to hear. How do those of you from large families and from cultures where large families are expected both from others and from yourself deal with having 3 or less children without feeling guilty?

 

All I can tell you is that I thought I was done when I had my 3rd at 26. I had never intended to have a large-ish family, but we found ourselves surprised to be discussing just that by the time #3 was 3yo, and then to find ourselves kicking around the idea of a 5th when #4 was still a baby. So I would personally hesitate to make any permanent decisions at that age. But that could just be me. I also didn't have any pregnancy complications (other than hating pregnancy) and have easy labors and deliveries, so there's that.

 

I honestly don't know how I'd feel about it if c-sections were a given. Did you look up the risk stats for first-time c-sections or vaginal births in comparison to multiple sections? I would probably want to know not just the basic stats, but exactly how much higher (or how little higher) they were when compared.

[Annie]

:grouphug:

 

My homebirth turned into what I believe was a very necessary csection, and because of complications during the surgery, any future babies will be need to be scheduled sections at 39 weeks. I'm supposed to avoid going into labor if at all possible.

 

We've pretty much decided that three will be the number for us. I feel pretty at peace with it now, but it definitely took me some time. I think the turn around point for me was when I gave myself permission to be sad about it for awhile. I felt guilty being sad when I had a precious newborn baby in my arms, but you know what? Losing your ability to safely have the number of children you envisioned yourself having is a sad thing! I had a few really good cries mourning the loss of the big family we wouldn't have, and as the months went on, the peace settled in. I still get choked up for a second every now and then, but it's much better now.

 

I'm 26, but we plan on having about three years between babies, so I'm not sure how I would feel about being done so young. :grouphug:

[forty-two]

I'm in a somewhat similar place as you, in that I always thought we'd have at least four kids, but due to (entirely different) medical reasons we're stopping at three. I'm not quite as young as you, but 30 still seems really young to me to be saying no more babies - based on my mom, I've got at least 20 more years of potential childbearing ahead of me - and I just never planned on being done now.

 

In our case, this pg turned unexpectedly high-risk, though only to the baby (I was fine), and the risk to the unborn baby increases with each subsequent pg. I was unwilling at first to definitively rule out a fourth pg, though that's where dh was, but after all the stress of weekly/twice-weekly tests, hoping the baby was still ok, I just couldn't imagine doing all that again on purpose. And that was *before* baby J ended up in ICU and needed a blood transfusion b/c of it!

 

But even though I'm at peace with the decision to stop now, I'm sad at the thought that baby J is my last - I *love* babies and the baby stage. And I feel kind of guilty about the fact that I can do more with just three than if we had more. But we're not doing anything permanent (yet, anyway), so I figure God can always give us a fourth if He wants to - I'm just completely unwilling to deliberately try for another or otherwise court fate by not preventing.

 

It was nice to know that baby J's our last before he was born - I'm extra conscious that this is it, so I'd better enjoy it to the fullest. (And during labor, the thought that I'd never be doing this again was rather comforting :giggle:.) But it's weird, and I've been wanting to talk it out, too - thus this (hopefully helpful) ramble on your thread ;).

[MelanieM]

One other thing you might research is how long it takes a body to completely heal from c-section, and take that into consideration with your planning. I have read that it takes 18 months for the body to go back to 'normal' after carrying a baby, and so I would look at at least that amount of time before conceiving again if I were already starting out with greater risk factors.

 

:grouphug: Good luck with your decision and planning. I'm sure it will work out to be the perfect family size for your family, whatever you decide.

[love2read]

I know a woman who had 6 c-sections and only stopped because she didn't get pregnant anymore. A friend as 13 children and the 2nd, two in the middle and the last one were c-sections. I asked my ob/gyn what was the most sections one of his patients had and he said 12. Best wishes to you!

[coralloyd]

I am in the same position. I have already had 3 c-sections, and am wondering if I should have a 4th. I had an adverse reaction to the anesthesia given. My heart rate dropped to the low 40's, with all 3. I had to see a cardiologist each time; who after many appointments and tests told me I was fine and in great health. I felt completely normal and healed fairly quickly with each one. The prospect of another c-section is scary. I so want another baby though. We had a surprise pregnancy a few months back, which ended in a miscarriage. We were so excited. Now we feel like we are in limbo, not knowing what to do. I pray about it often. So I'm no help, but :grouphug:.

[cjzimmer1]

I have to echo that's it's pretty hard to plan out feature number of kids now. Time has a way of changing many things. When I was a teenager/college age I wasn't going to have ANY kids. After my first was born, I said no more ever. After my 2nd was born I was perfect content to be done (but not adiment like I was with number 1) after number 3 was born, I was already thinking about #4 but wanted to wait a few years. After #4 we were ready to try for #5 as soon as my body was ready (It takes my body about a year after birth to start cycles again). And now we are discussing more. SO much for not having any kids.

 

ALlso as far as births go, my first was a c-section. My 2nd I had a repeat c-section after a failed VBAC (he was face up and wedged into my pelvic bone). However, my 3rd, 4th and 5th were all natural (no drugs whatsoever) births. With my 3rd my doctor was supportive of VBAC and I had doula (who made all the difference in the world in my opinion in helping me to have a successful VBAC). But my doctor with my 4th and 5th was not happy about my wanting to VBAC. She told me every scary statistic in the book and then some. However, when I explained that we planned to have more kids. And frankly, the statitics for having complications during pregnancy goes up with each additional c-section. (Basically my %chance of a problem during my 4th (5th 6th, whatever) pregnancy after 3 (or 4 of 5)c-sections was higher than the %chance of complications during a vbac after 2 c-sections). After our discussion, even though my doctor didn't agree with my decision, she knew I understood the risks, and understood why I made the decisions I did. She did support my VBAC's.

 

So while this doesn't really answer your question about planning your family, personally, I would be researching a VBA2C a lot more than trying to determine my family size based on the risk factors of multiple c-sections.

[Aelwydd]

I don't know, I think the number of kids you have has to be a personal and individual choice. Not that you're wrong to ask opinions; it's just that the opinions you get are going to be swayed by what each poster feels is good or bad about large families.

 

I have my own opinion, but I don't think that will help you much. Honestly, reading your post, it seems to me that you are leaning towards having 3 kids, and you are maybe seeking permission to make that choice? You and dh have always considered 5 kids, or a large family, to be the default. But now, health issues have forced you to really examine your feelings about small versus large.

 

And, you are allowing yourself to really consider an option other than what you had always assumed would be the case (maybe what other family members or friends had also assumed...?).

 

The repeat c-section question is a valid one. Please don't take this post to mean I don't think you are really concerned about this. I do think it is important to consider. Personally, it's not hysterectomy and blood transfusions that bothers me the most about multiple c-sections. It's the risks of serious placental problems, such as previa, accreta and percreta, that go up exponentially with each surgery.

 

Uterine rupture is also much more of an issue; when the uterus has been compromised frequently and seriously enough, it doesn't even need labor for it to rupture. That's why some women have to c-sections 2-3 weeks before their due dates, to hopefully deliver the baby before the uterus tear or split from the weight of the baby.

 

Then, there are the less serious health implications, that are still quite painful. Adhesions are a frequently reported side effect of sections. Scarring of the uterus, especially one that has been repeatedly operated on, builds up and actually "spreads" to other organs. These adhesions can be quite bad, causing several internal organs to become "bound" via scar tissue. This condition often results in pain and other complications.

 

So, yeah, you can have 5 or 10 sections, and not end up with a hysterectomy, but still end up with any number of long term complications associated with the procedure.

 

Finally, I just want to say again that you should give yourself permission to stop at 3, if that's what you want, and to be happy about it.

[ktgrok]

I just wanted to reply that you might be more able to find a doctor/hospital for a VBAC after 2 c-sections than you think. ACOG just recently released guidelines/studies that showed there was NO increased risk in a VBAC after 2 c-sections compared to 1. So it is the same level of risk as any other VBAC. Just a thought.

 

Also, as for the risk of multiple c-sections it isn't just about risks to you. The risks of placental abruption and placenta accretia go up quite a bit with each one. So it's not about being selfish, it's about what is safest for you AND your baby.

 

Edited to add: I also wanted to say I know several women that had VBAC's after their second c-section.

[ktgrok]

\

 

 

Uterine rupture is also much more of an issue; when the uterus has been compromised frequently and seriously enough, it doesn't even need labor for it to rupture. That's why some women have to c-sections 2-3 weeks before their due dates, to hopefully deliver the baby before the uterus tear or split from the weight of the baby.

 

[/i]

 

Actually, recent studies, and ACOG's new recommendations show that the risk of rupture does NOT go up with each one. VBAC after 2 c-sections is no more risky than after one. And actually, the newest study I read just yesterday said that VBAC after 5 had the same risks as the VBAC after 1.

 

Just a thought.

[Aelwydd]

Actually, recent studies, and ACOG's new recommendations show that the risk of rupture does NOT go up with each one. VBAC after 2 c-sections is no more risky than after one. And actually, the newest study I read just yesterday said that VBAC after 5 had the same risks as the VBAC after 1.

 

Just a thought.

 

As far as I've read, those recommendations are usually predicated on the woman waiting 18 months between births. Many women do not wait this long to conceive and have subsequent children, and as a result, tends to drive rupture rates up in this subset. Obviously, a partially healed incision is not likely to hold up as well as a fully healed one.

 

Also, I am skeptical of a study that puts the same risk on VBA1C as VBA5C. Common sense would seem to indicate that the more injuries you inflict upon a muscle, the more likely it is to suffer loss of function. Can you link me to the study?

[ktgrok]

As far as I've read, those recommendations are usually predicated on the woman waiting 18 months between births. Many women do not wait this long to conceive and have subsequent children, and as a result, tends to drive rupture rates up in this subset. Obviously, a partially healed incision is not likely to hold up as well as a fully healed one.

 

Also, I am skeptical of a study that puts the same risk on VBA1C as VBA5C. Common sense would seem to indicate that the more injuries you inflict upon a muscle, the more likely it is to suffer loss of function. Can you link me to the study?

 

I actually can't find it right now, my friend was reading it to me and she is not online. But I found this small study, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02498.x/full and the women in the 3 or more prior c-section category had the same outcomes as the women that had only one previous c-section. Too small a study to get a good idea for sure, but good to know about. The info on VBAC after 2 prior C-sections is mainstream now, and even the ACOG now says it is safe. Hence this study moving on to look at 3 or more. VBA2C is now practically old news, lol.

 

This is from the ACOG website: "The College guidelines now clearly say that women with two previous low-transverse cesarean incisions, women carrying twins, and women with an unknown type of uterine scar are considered appropriate candidates for a TOLAC," said Jeffrey L. Ecker, MD, from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and immediate past vice chair of the Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics who co-wrote the document

 

This is the link: http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr07-21-10-1.cfm

 

I also wanted to add that uterine rupture is USUALLY only catastrophic when it effects the placenta (uterine arteries can be involved as well). A very easy measure to prevent this is to have an ultrasound done to identify where the placenta is in relation to the scar. If, as in most cases, the placenta is posterior then it is VERY unlikely that even IF there as a rupture there would be a catastrophic outcome. In ruptures where the placenta is not effected labor stalls, which eventually leads to a c-section where the rupture is discovered. But there isn't the horror that you hear about in the cases where the placenta was right over the scar. Had my placenta been near/on my scar I would not have attempted a VBAC i don't think...although in that case having a repeat c would also have been very difficult, because they would have had to try to avoid cutting the placenta when making the incision. Crazy stuff.

Edited June 12, 2011 by ktgrok

[Melinda in VT]

How do those of you from large families and from cultures where large families are expected both from others and from yourself deal with having 3 or less children without feeling guilty?

 

I grew up Mormon and was active in the church until I left at age 30. I'm 40 now. In my experience, most Mormons my age or younger are having much smaller families. In thinking of siblings, siblings-in-law, former roommates, etc., three seems the average number of kids.

 

In some cases, this is based on infertility, health issues in the mother, or health issues in the children, but in other cases it is due to a sense that the parents are better suited to manage fewer kids.

 

All of which is my long-winded way of saying that you may find more support in your culture than you think. :grouphug:

[dangermom]

I was in a similar situation as you (and I'm also LDS). In my case, I wanted to have at least one more and was not pleased by the prospect of stopping, but my husband pointed out concerns about my health. My OB was perfectly willing to do a bunch of c-sections (he is a great guy).

 

I wound up praying about it a lot, and got a clear answer that I only got to have 2 children. Part of my answer was peace about it, so I haven't had any trouble with guilt or hurt feelings. But nobody in my ward has ever given me a hard time about it or questioned me either--thought I'm pretty open about it.

 

(That is, until today, when I found out that a FB post I made a few weeks ago about an unexpected development in my life spawned some speculation! :lol: But that's probably my own fault.)

[Aelwydd]

I actually can't find it right now, my friend was reading it to me and she is not online. But I found this small study, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02498.x/full and the women in the 3 or more prior c-section category had the same outcomes as the women that had only one previous c-section. Too small a study to get a good idea for sure, but good to know about. The info on VBAC after 2 prior C-sections is mainstream now, and even the ACOG now says it is safe. Hence this study moving on to look at 3 or more. VBA2C is now practically old news, lol.

 

This is from the ACOG website: "The College guidelines now clearly say that women with two previous low-transverse cesarean incisions, women carrying twins, and women with an unknown type of uterine scar are considered appropriate candidates for a TOLAC," said Jeffrey L. Ecker, MD, from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and immediate past vice chair of the Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics who co-wrote the document

 

This is the link: http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr07-21-10-1.cfm

 

I also wanted to add that uterine rupture is only catastrophic when it effects the placenta. A very easy measure to prevent this is to have an ultrasound done to identify where the placenta is in relation to the scar. If, as in most cases, the placenta is posterior then it is VERY unlikely that even IF there as a rupture there would be a catastrophic outcome. In ruptures where the placenta is not effected labor stalls, which eventually leads to a c-section where the rupture is discovered. But there isn't the horror that you hear about in the cases where the placenta was right over the scar. Had my placenta been near/on my scar I would not have attempted a VBAC i don't think...although in that case having a repeat c would also have been very difficult, because they would have had to try to avoid cutting the placenta when making the incision. Crazy stuff.

 

One small study is not enough, IMO, to outweigh larger studies that indicate an increase in risk. However, thanks for the link and I am going to read and review for sure.

 

Also, I am not debating whether VBA2C poses too much of a risk; I am disputing that VBA5C poses no more risk than 1 c-sec. ACOG makes many recommendations; some are based upon the evidence, and others (like their disastrous "24 hour anesth. rule for VBACs) are not. I really don't consider ACOG to be the authority, as much as I do other health agencies. It often operates more as a trade union for OB/Gyns, in the sense that it likes to target home birth with its recommendations, and lobbies very hard in favor of reducing or eliminating legal home birth midwivery. So, ACOG may recognize that VBA2Cs pose no appreciable risk of rupture than a VBA1C, but it speaks out of two sides of its mouth, since its other policies tend to make the accomplishment of VBAC a difficult feat. To say the least.

 

You seem to me, to be arguing two different things. You state that c-sections pose an increased risk, terms of accreta, but do not admit any increased risk of rupture. Both accreta and rupture result from a compromised uterus, due to the incision. I am a big proponent of vaginal birth, and I agree with you that if the OP were to have more children, it would be in her best interests to pursue a VBA2C.

 

Because if she has another c-sec, that's yet more trauma to her uterus. And I believe that the data supports the position that multiple sections, especially 4+, do increase the risks across the board, including rupture.

 

But, given the litigious nature of obstetrics, and thanks to some of ACOG's more onerous recommendations, it is pretty difficult to find an OB who will take the professional risk of attending a VBAC at all, much less a VBA2C. It really depends on the region she lives in; each region has its "flavor" in terms of how interventive and restrictive its hospitals tend to be WRT L&D.

 

Lastly, I would be wary of pursuing a VBAC unless there were several stipulations in place. Like, absolutely NO artificial induction or pitocin, unless it is under 1-on-1 monitoring. Which is a joke, to most hospitals. I have a friend who lost her ds in a uterine rupture, and why was it? It was because she was induced with pitocin, and then when the monitors began indicating a problem, the nurses and staff were extremely slow in recognizing the problem and responding to it.

 

I agree with you that having a rupture, or even what they call a "window," doesn't need to be catastrophic. The problem is, that your chances of it ending badly are dependent upon highly variable factors, such as whether or not pitocin or other chemical induction is used, and how much; what kind of monitoring is in place; how the staff responds to a possible problem. Once rupture begins, the window of time before things go to **** can be as little as 10 minutes.

 

And all that doesn't even address the problem which I actually mentioned in the beginning; uterine ruptures that occur before labor.

 

Were it me with a history of 2 sections and wanting several kids, I'd wait at least 18 months before trying to conceive. Then, I would look very hard for midwifery care supplemented by u/s to check for placental anamolies, and hopefully detect any problems with the scar site, like windowing. I would prepare for a low-interventive birth, so that I could remain upright and mobile, and hopefully reduce the risk of a "stalled labor," and subsequently, pitocin to quick start it up again.

 

I would seek to give birth in either a freestanding birth center near a hospital, or a midwifery wing of a hospital, so that I would be in an environment that supports low-intervention birth, but also is equipped to monitor the woman and baby very closely, and to respond quickly, if necessary.

 

That is how I would approach the problem, but that is based on my comfort zone. I still think the OP sounds like she is not really wanting more than 3 kids after all, so this may all be irrelevant anyway.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Aelwydd

[Audrey]

This might be an unpopular response to some people, but I firmly believe that one should have only as many children as they can successfully parent (on all levels: from the emotional one, the factor of how much time you can dedicate to each child, to more 'down-to-Earth' factors such as financial ones and how many children you can successfully parent from that point of view, and finally, to the health factor of the mother, other children, etc.). The more the merrier, I say, but ONLY if you actually have the tools (emotional, physical, health, financial, space, etc.) to raise happy and healthy children with a reasonable amount of investing into their education.

 

Personally - and this is exclusively a personal preference, not a "recipe" for anyone - I would err on the safe side. I have three children myself, but as much as I catch myself wanting one more, realistically, I know that three are my limit in most of the above categories. I doubt *I personally* would feel like a successful parent with managing the needs of five or six children while still having some sort of personal life (which is important to me and may or may not be important to others). Even only three are overwhelming for me at times. This is not to say that, should more kids "happen", we would not adapt - one adapts to everything and ultimately finds joy and positives in any situation - but a priori, I would go with the lower end of the acceptable number of children for me rather than with the higher end, especially if I intuitively knew I function better with fewer people around me. YMMV.

 

:iagree:

[Shellydon]

I know one person with 6 children via c-section, one with 7 via c-section, and one with 5 via c-section. I think you could probably have several more if you wanted.

[twoforjoy]

From my perspective, only three children seems like such a small family, but it is also very appealing. With only three children, I could do a lot of the things with my family that my family couldn't do growing up. I think my personality works best with fewer people, meaning I'm a "one great friend is better than 5 good friends" kind of person, and that may translate well into my parenting style. Homeschooling would be so much easier, etc. So even though there are many pros, I feel crazy guilty about stopping at 3 kids for some reason and don't want to do it just to be selfish.

 

I would not have more children than is right for your family out of guilt.

 

It sounds like maybe this comes down more to what you want than what is the right decision medically (if there is such a right decision). If you feel like, with three kids, your family will be complete, then even if you could safely bear 10 more children, I wouldn't feel guilty about not doing so.

[justamouse]

Take it as it comes.

 

As much as I thought I was done-as many years I waited so I could be fully sure -I went and got my tubes tied and now want another so badly.

 

All that to say you can THINK you are positively absolutely sure, and in two years may rethink your decision.

 

See, things are really settled for us now. We're in a sweet, sweet spot. And though I had waited and thought and decided for 5 years if I was going get my tubes tied, the year I did it was one of the most stressful I had ever been though. And now comes this sweet spot, one where I could so easily have another-and I can't.

 

You never, ever know. Just take it as it comes.

[KnitWit]

The size of your family is a very personal thing between you and your dh ONLY. Don't let people step into that relationship although it is amazingly SHOCKING how many complete strangers feel they have the right to not only step into it, but heap guilt upon you if you don't follow suit with their view.

 

:grouphug:

 

That said, on the issue of vbac, I just want to say that I have had three completely unmedicated, non-intervention vbacs after three c-sections. I also think *this* is a completely personal decision that NOONE can step into. Every one is different. There are risks. There are good outcomes and there are awful ones. Only YOU can determine what you should do. I was blessed to have an OB who worked closely with me and gave me good counsel (including when to seek a midwife and homebirth!)

 

It will be hard for you to find your position on this until you shut everyone else out. :grouphug:

[SnowWhite]

My mom had four c-sections, the last in Jan of 1980. She had those old-fashioned "zipper" incisions, which were much more invasive. She's fine.

[JessieC]

I read this quote somewhere and it rings true for me:

 

I love being a mother too much to ruin it by having too many children.

[prairiewindmomma]

---

Edited November 10, 2021 by prairiewindmomma

[The Girls' Mom]

My only advice is to wait until you are older before you make any permanent decisions to STOP having children. I had my tubal at 25, and I was TOO young. My life and circumstances are so different now, and I would have loved to have more children.

[sarah1615]

The only advice I have is to try to let go of the guilt. It's okay to change your plans.

 

I had no problems with any of my labors or deliveries, but with my last child I had a VERY difficult bout of post-partum anxiety. It was so terrible that I made the decision to stop at 3 great kids since my kids need a healthy, happy mom more than anything else. It was a very hard decision, but I did ask for signs and believe that I got enough that made it clear I should be done. I will never say never at this point, but I am fairly certain that 3 will be just right for my family.

 

Just go with your gut and let go of the guilt--no matter what you choose!

[MeaganS]

I want to say thank you for all that have responded. You've given me lots to think about. Thanks for being willing to talk about this with me. As for VBA2C, given the reasons for my first 2 cesareans, I don't think it would be possible for me to labor successfully with my third or fourth, although if I go into labor naturally, I'm definitely going to give it a try. I just don't think that's going to happen.

 

I definitely think I'm subconsciously looking for permission to have a small family. I feel like I probably COULD have 4 cesareans, but it gets so dangerous once you get up to those numbers, and I love the idea of only having 3 kids. I mentioned to my mom that we might be stopping after our next, and she talked about how sad that would have been to have not had my younger 3 siblings. It didn't really help much, although I'm sure she didn't mean it to guilt me (she's a good mom :001_smile:).

 

Actually, now that I think about it, it's almost the same sort mourning that I went through when I decided to homeschool. I think it might be the better decision, but I always expected something different, so I'm having to shift my paradigm and it's a little sad. Plus there's some guilt mixed in. Thanks for listening to my ramblings, you guys are the best.

[MeaganS]

As for doing something permanent, I'm not going to do that unless I'm 100% sure, which I doubt I will be without some sort of very dangerous medical situation. Like I mentioned before, thank you all. I appreciate the variety of life experiences on this board and how straight talking you all are.

[KnitWit]

((((Meagan))))

 

The only people that need to give you permission to have a small family are you and your husband.

[MeaganS]

((((Meagan))))

 

The only people that need to give you permission to have a small family are you and your husband.

 

Oh, I know. :001_smile: I just like to talk things over with willing ears. We move so often I don't really have many friends in real life, and it's sort of difficult to talk about these things with people who know us and may have a bias.

[EgoElfWife]

I know someone with 7 c/s and one with 6 c/s.

 

Both recovered very easily after each c/s.

[JennyD]

It's funny -- I also have three children, but in my circle that IS considered to be a large family!

 

I wholeheartedly agree that the only opinions that matter are those of you and your husband. I also wonder if a certain sadness, or maybe wistfulness, just comes with the territory of acknowledging the end of one's childbearing, no matter what the size of your family or how certain you are that you are 'done.' We are definitely done at three -- the idea of having more makes me think of Icarus -- but even so I can't help but wonder (as someone I know once memorably put it) how many other awesome people are stuck inside my ovaries. It is, like you say, a bit of a mourning, even though I have no desire for more children and feel only profound gratitude for the ones that I have.

Edited June 13, 2011 by JennyD

[Tarreymere]

I've worked in L&D units in areas with a high Amish population, and we did have several moms who were having a fourth or greater c-section. I know the risks were higher but apparently not high enough to dissuade those women. FYI, the only uterine ruptures I have experienced professionally happened during labor inductions with high pitocin or lots of cytotec and a strong epidural.

 

I think that if you find a doctor who has some experience in dealing with multiple c-section clients and who evaluates your personal risk level you might have some better information to use to make your decision. I wouldn't necessarily decide against another pregnancy just because it would mean another c-section.

 

I think that at this point that you are still in a place where you have quite a bit of time before you have to decide one way or another. You may choose not to have more right now and years from now change your mind or not change your mind. I never could decide I was 'done'. I went nearly ten years between births at one point, because I was pretty sure I was done. I think I'm 'done' now.......but hey with those women in their sixties getting pregnant who knows, maybe I'll change my mind in another ten years.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Rainefox

[texasmama]

:grouphug: I would make this decision one child/pregnancy at a time. I don't think you can plan ahead further than that really.

[meggie]

I am LDS in the middle of LDS-dom. I got PPD pretty bad after Digby was born, the sleep deprivation was literally driving me nuts. When I accidently got pregnant with #3, I drove myself crazy with the guilt of not wanting anymore. Which was a huge blow to me, since I'd always wanted 5-8. But I know I just can't handle anymore and I don't want to put my children through that again. I looked at the women in my ward who are my age and have 5 and feel like such a complete failure. But the reality is, the number of children you have is not what makes you a success or failure as a parent. In the end, all that matters is that you can stand before your Maker and tell Him you did your absolute best. Please don't let anyone else guilt you into something you don't want. They have their opportunity to parent and it is totally between you, your husband, and the Lord what you do.