Something to consider also is that babies can get a bit shocked and distressed when it happens very quickly
This hasn't been my experience. I have been with women who've had 10 minute labours and the babies were born with perfect Apgars. Many things contribute to foetal distress, and a quickly progressing labour rarely will cause distress, as it couldn't happen in such a quick and forthcoming manner if there were any obstacle. Long, hindered labours, especially if privacy, mobility and gravity are reduced or eliminated, are more likely to lead to distress. Artificial means of speeding up the process can cause distress, as can anything that distresses the mother. But I can't find any information to support that quick labours are at higher risk for causing foetal distress.

LuluHB, homebirth too can be a perfectly sensible option for some people in some situations. Certainly it has a lot going for it in the sensible stakes, compared to induction or transferring in labour. Wouldn't it be lovely if the obstetrician would just come to your home, as they did in the old days and still do in Europe? Peter Lucas is a Melbourne obstetrician who attends homebirths. In the UK< if a multip labours fast, a flying squad of midwives goes to the home to save her transferring to hospital during a fast-progressing labour. Wish we had that kind of service here. Several women in my town, over an hour from any maternity hospital, have had unplanned unassisted births because there was no point even trying to get to the car. It's one thing to do it by conscious choice, it's another thing to have it happen because your only option to avoid it is induction, with all the risk involved with that. Why should a woman who gives birth so easily as well, in such a safe and normal manner, have to have intervention?