When I was pregnant with my angel I had already started to write my birth plan. My plan involved trying to make things progress as naturally and calmly as possibly. It wasn't until my DH started asking questions like "what if something goes wrong and you need a c-section" that I even started to consider that things might not go exactly the way I'm hoping for things to go when I give birth.

So that got me thinking about alternatives. My DH and I have written a seperate birth plan in the event that circumstance prevents me from having the totally natural birth that I'm hoping for. And in that plan it requests a maternal assisted c-section. If I can't experience reaching down and bringing my child to my chest in a vaginal birth, then I want to at least have the option of doing something similar in a c-section. We also still want the baby's cord not to be cut immediately (a tough ask during c-sections I've heard...) and we want DH to still have the option of cutting the cord too.

I, like Ren, did not even consider the implications of increasing elective c-section rates from introducing maternal assisted c-sections as an option. I now can see how this could unfortunately make elective c-sections more appealing for those that may not even require it. But there is no way that I would want that option restricted just to the mothers that aren't able to birth their baby's vaginally due to medical reasons.

I'm pro-vaginal birth, but I'm also pro-choice...