 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
IS MATERNAL-INFANT BONDING AND LOVE AT FIRST SIGHT ONLY A SCIENTIFIC MYTH AS PARENTING & BABYTALK MAGAZINE EDITORS CLAIM? Considering an elective cesarean? Aside from the physical, there may be serious emotional risks which can affect your relationship with your newborn that you need to know about! On September 3, 2008, the BBC in the UK published an article called " NATURAL BIRTH MAY AID BABY BOND!" Mothers who gave birth naturally are more responsive to the cry of their baby than those who choose to have a cesarean, American research suggests. |
Brain scans on 12 new mothers soon after birth found more activity in
areas linked to motivation and emotions in those who had a vaginal
delivery. The Yale University team says differences in the hormones
generated by birth could be the reason.
The contractions which are an essential part of a natural birth trigger the
release of the hormone oxytocin, which is thought to play a key role in
shaping maternal behavior. However, undergoing a cesarean does not
trigger the same release of hormones.
Cesareans have been linked to an increased risk of post partum
depression. The Yale team carried out brain scans on 12 women 2-4
weeks after they had given birth. Six had cesareans and 6 gave birth
vaginally. The differences in brain activity were found in regions that not
only appeared to influence a mother's response to her child, but also to
regulate her mood.
Lead researcher Dr. James Swain said the study, reported in the Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, might help provide a better
understanding of the chemistry underpinning the attachment between a
mother and her baby- "Our results support the theory that variations in
delivery conditions such as with cesarean section, which alters the
neuro-hormonal experiences of childbirth, might decrease the
responsiveness of the human maternal brain in the early postpartum."
In the February 2008 edition of PARENTING MAGAZINE, Stephanie
Wood and Kitty O'Callaghan, editors of Babytalk magazine wrote an article
called "The Truth About Baby Bonding", and claim that love at first sight is
a maternal myth- "A generation and much misplaced guilt later, the delivery
room bonding theory has taken its rightful place on the garbage heap of
maternal lore. We all know that it's a bunch of rubbish.....The idea that a
lifelong relationship could hinge on what happens in the first 24 hours of
life sounds LAUGHABLE now, but back then plenty of new moms were
left crying."
What is wrong with your thinking, ladies? A lifelong relationship DOES
hinge on what happens in the first 24 hours of life. As a matter of fact, it
hinges on what happens BEFORE the newborn is taken from its mother
after birth. When a baby is removed from its mother after birth before she
has a chance to establish the baby that was inside of her with the baby now
"out here", she goes through a process similar to "mourning". The longer
the baby is kept from her, the more complete her detachment from her infant
becomes until, when the newborn is later returned to her, she
subconsciously no longer wishes to accept the infant as her own. That's
why new moms were left crying!
In simpler terms, how can any new mother get to know her newborn in the
few minutes she is allowed to hold her infant in most hospitals, and even
remember what her child looks like later? When you meet a stranger, can
you describe what he/she looks like, or personality characteristics, or
anything else about that person after just a few minutes? Yet, that is what
most mothers in hospitals are supposed to be content with. In truth, more
mothers than you think, question whether or not they got their own baby
back, but no one talks about this for fear of being odd!
On May 2, 1993, an article was published in the New York Times called,
"It Doesn't Come Naturally" by Laura Shapiro. She commented on a book
written by Diane E. Eyer called "Mother-Infant Bonding, A Scientific
Fiction" and wrote, "Move over, Hillary, working mothers have a new
heroine. She is Diane Eyer, whose lucid and dispassionate analysis of the
bonding mystique not only punctures a hyper inflated theory, but beautifully
skewers those experts on motherhood who make no distinction between
science and wishful thinking."
If maternal-infant bonding doesn't come naturally, it's because we don't
allow it to!
Ms. Shapiro continues, "As a theory that quickly turned into a demand,
mother -infant bonding flourished during the 1970's and early
1980's....essentially it referred to an emotional and psychological process
that committed a mother to her newborn infant in the first few minutes,
hours, or maybe days of the baby's life. Unlike the old fashioned way of
getting to know and love one's baby, bonding had to happen right away in
the hospital."
The old fashioned way of getting to know and love one's baby started at
birth at home, and the baby was always with its mother. Mother instinct
prevailed in those days because all mothers knew they had the right baby.
There is absolutely no reason why the majority of women who give birth in
the hospital today can't keep their babies with them for at least 6 hours,
uninterrupted by medical procedures that can wait until later, so they can be
sure they bring home the same baby they carried within their bodies for
nine months! This is a small price to pay for the possibility that child will
be loved instead of neglected, abused, or killed!
If the modern way of birthing is better, consider that since the bonding
theory was discredited in the mid '80's, by 1999 an estimated 3,244,000
children were reported to Child Protective Services as alleged victims of
maltreatment. An estimated 1,401 children died from abuse or neglect. The
estimated number of children seriously injured by all forms of maltreatment
quadrupled between 1986 and 1993- from 141,700 to 565,000- a 299%
increase.
Congratulations Ms. Wood, Ms. O'Callaghan, and Ms. Eyer!
People like you have made sure that the bonding theory has been
thrown into the garbage heap of maternal lore, along with the
millions of children who might just have been better off if the
importance of bonding for a mere 6 hours after birth had been taken
more seriously and implemented in every hospital in the United
States!
In order for women to reach their highest potential as parents,
they must first obey the laws of nature during birth!
areas linked to motivation and emotions in those who had a vaginal
delivery. The Yale University team says differences in the hormones
generated by birth could be the reason.
The contractions which are an essential part of a natural birth trigger the
release of the hormone oxytocin, which is thought to play a key role in
shaping maternal behavior. However, undergoing a cesarean does not
trigger the same release of hormones.
Cesareans have been linked to an increased risk of post partum
depression. The Yale team carried out brain scans on 12 women 2-4
weeks after they had given birth. Six had cesareans and 6 gave birth
vaginally. The differences in brain activity were found in regions that not
only appeared to influence a mother's response to her child, but also to
regulate her mood.
Lead researcher Dr. James Swain said the study, reported in the Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, might help provide a better
understanding of the chemistry underpinning the attachment between a
mother and her baby- "Our results support the theory that variations in
delivery conditions such as with cesarean section, which alters the
neuro-hormonal experiences of childbirth, might decrease the
responsiveness of the human maternal brain in the early postpartum."
In the February 2008 edition of PARENTING MAGAZINE, Stephanie
Wood and Kitty O'Callaghan, editors of Babytalk magazine wrote an article
called "The Truth About Baby Bonding", and claim that love at first sight is
a maternal myth- "A generation and much misplaced guilt later, the delivery
room bonding theory has taken its rightful place on the garbage heap of
maternal lore. We all know that it's a bunch of rubbish.....The idea that a
lifelong relationship could hinge on what happens in the first 24 hours of
life sounds LAUGHABLE now, but back then plenty of new moms were
left crying."
What is wrong with your thinking, ladies? A lifelong relationship DOES
hinge on what happens in the first 24 hours of life. As a matter of fact, it
hinges on what happens BEFORE the newborn is taken from its mother
after birth. When a baby is removed from its mother after birth before she
has a chance to establish the baby that was inside of her with the baby now
"out here", she goes through a process similar to "mourning". The longer
the baby is kept from her, the more complete her detachment from her infant
becomes until, when the newborn is later returned to her, she
subconsciously no longer wishes to accept the infant as her own. That's
why new moms were left crying!
In simpler terms, how can any new mother get to know her newborn in the
few minutes she is allowed to hold her infant in most hospitals, and even
remember what her child looks like later? When you meet a stranger, can
you describe what he/she looks like, or personality characteristics, or
anything else about that person after just a few minutes? Yet, that is what
most mothers in hospitals are supposed to be content with. In truth, more
mothers than you think, question whether or not they got their own baby
back, but no one talks about this for fear of being odd!
On May 2, 1993, an article was published in the New York Times called,
"It Doesn't Come Naturally" by Laura Shapiro. She commented on a book
written by Diane E. Eyer called "Mother-Infant Bonding, A Scientific
Fiction" and wrote, "Move over, Hillary, working mothers have a new
heroine. She is Diane Eyer, whose lucid and dispassionate analysis of the
bonding mystique not only punctures a hyper inflated theory, but beautifully
skewers those experts on motherhood who make no distinction between
science and wishful thinking."
If maternal-infant bonding doesn't come naturally, it's because we don't
allow it to!
Ms. Shapiro continues, "As a theory that quickly turned into a demand,
mother -infant bonding flourished during the 1970's and early
1980's....essentially it referred to an emotional and psychological process
that committed a mother to her newborn infant in the first few minutes,
hours, or maybe days of the baby's life. Unlike the old fashioned way of
getting to know and love one's baby, bonding had to happen right away in
the hospital."
The old fashioned way of getting to know and love one's baby started at
birth at home, and the baby was always with its mother. Mother instinct
prevailed in those days because all mothers knew they had the right baby.
There is absolutely no reason why the majority of women who give birth in
the hospital today can't keep their babies with them for at least 6 hours,
uninterrupted by medical procedures that can wait until later, so they can be
sure they bring home the same baby they carried within their bodies for
nine months! This is a small price to pay for the possibility that child will
be loved instead of neglected, abused, or killed!
If the modern way of birthing is better, consider that since the bonding
theory was discredited in the mid '80's, by 1999 an estimated 3,244,000
children were reported to Child Protective Services as alleged victims of
maltreatment. An estimated 1,401 children died from abuse or neglect. The
estimated number of children seriously injured by all forms of maltreatment
quadrupled between 1986 and 1993- from 141,700 to 565,000- a 299%
increase.
Congratulations Ms. Wood, Ms. O'Callaghan, and Ms. Eyer!
People like you have made sure that the bonding theory has been
thrown into the garbage heap of maternal lore, along with the
millions of children who might just have been better off if the
importance of bonding for a mere 6 hours after birth had been taken
more seriously and implemented in every hospital in the United
States!
In order for women to reach their highest potential as parents,
they must first obey the laws of nature during birth!