Harlow Madden is a ‘People’ cover girl

**sputnik** · February 28th, 2008, 03:41 AM

cute picture, except for nicole's hair. it looks yellow and stringy.

**Shalev** · February 28th, 2008, 03:59 AM

Cute baby

Nicole looks really nice too

**aabbcc** · February 28th, 2008, 06:35 AM

Originally Posted by DeadDwarf

I just saw that blind item too. How sad! I think it's Nicole too.

Which one? Link, please.

**cmmdee** · February 28th, 2008, 07:28 AM

Well hopefully she'll lay off the drugs and booze now

**Sweetie** · February 28th, 2008, 07:42 AM

Question......why do some many people get concerned with women having a baby naturally? (Not talking about you guys, just people in general.)

**Mel1973** · February 28th, 2008, 07:44 AM

It shows how "tough" they are. If you can shove a baby out your puss, you're tops. If you shove a baby out your puss, with no drugs .. you're the fucking macho woman. C-section = wussy... cuz it takes 5 minutes & who wants it over in 5 minutes when you could labor, sweat & push for days??

**aabbcc** · February 28th, 2008, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by Sweetie

Question......why do some many people get concerned with women having a baby naturally? (Not talking about you guys, just people in general.)

It has been mentioned before that it is healthier for the baby to be delivered naturally, because certain things happen during the labour and delivery process to prepare the baby for the outside world.

My beef with the whole c-section thing is that no one seems to be thinking about what is best for the baby ... it always seems to be about the woman and often it's just because the woman is afraid of a little pain. I'm thinking specifically about Xtina here and her comments. Frankly, the pain isn't that horrendous. Sure it hurts, but it's bearable.

In my opinion, no c-section should ever be performed just because the woman can't handle a few labour pains. It was designed as an emergency procedure to get the baby out safely if something went wrong during delivery, not to be used as a replacement for the birth process.

It just baffles me that no one ever seems to think about what might be best for the baby.

And I'm not referring to anyone here. It's just a general statement.

**Sweetie** · February 28th, 2008, 08:09 AM

^ Okay, I understand now. I have never had kids so I don't really know much about the birthing process.

**Mel1973** · February 28th, 2008, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by aabbcc

It has been mentioned before that it is healthier for the baby to be delivered naturally, because certain things happen during the labour and delivery process to prepare the baby for the outside world.

My beef with the whole c-section thing is that no one seems to be thinking about what is best for the baby ... it always seems to be about the woman and often it's just because the woman is afraid of a little pain. I'm thinking specifically about Xtina here and her comments. Frankly, the pain isn't that horrendous. Sure it hurts, but it's bearable.

In my opinion, no c-section should ever be performed just because the woman can't handle a few labour pains. It was designed as an emergency procedure to get the baby out safely if something went wrong during delivery, not to be used as a replacement for the birth process.

It just baffles me that no one ever seems to think about what might be best for the baby.

And I'm not referring to anyone here. It's just a general statement.

I know what you mean. I had my son "naturally/vaginally" and was induced at about 5:30 in the morning after he was about 3 weeks overdue. And I'll tell ya, that whole "breaking the water" with that big coathanger thing was the worst part & hurt like mutha. Contractions are not pleasant but, like you said, it's all bearable...

**aabbcc** · February 28th, 2008, 08:18 AM

They had to break my water with an amnio hook both times I was in labour. The first time they did it was to speed up the labour. Nine hours later ...

**Mel1973** · February 28th, 2008, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by aabbcc

They had to break my water with an amnio hook both times I was in labour. The first time they did it was to speed up the labour. Nine hours later ...

exactly .. "speed up labor" my ass - even with the breaking of the water and pitocin to "move everything along", my son was born 12 hours later. I'm scared to think how long it would have taken without "help"....

see, sweetie - war stories is what labor is about

**Sweetie** · February 28th, 2008, 08:30 AM

^ Yeah, you girlies keep talking.....I won't ever have one.

**Mel1973** · February 28th, 2008, 08:32 AM

nah, it's true that women forget. Hell, the day I had mine, I'd heard so many previous horror stories that my comment was "I thought it'd take longer".

**aabbcc** · February 28th, 2008, 08:35 AM

It's amazing how quickly you forget. I spent eighteen hours trying to get the first one, with the HUGE head, out of my body. And as soon as they laid him on my belly, cord still attached, I was already planning his sister.

**Sweetie** · February 28th, 2008, 08:37 AM

I saw my nephew being born and it was not pretty. I think that's what has put me off from having children for all these years. I have heard that you forget what the pain was like pretty quickly though.