And Another Thing: Letter to the Editor of New York Times

Last night I read an article on my Google Reader that appeared in the New York Times. I am trying to write more on my blog because I have a lot to say in my head so I am going to re-print an Letter to the Editor that I wrote today in regards to the article.

I want to make it clear that I am neither for or against natural childbirth. I think everyone needs to do what is right for them and what is in their and their child’s best interest. These are merely my thoughts on the article: Welcome to NYT Parenting: Here is Why We Won’t Say Natural Childbirth that first appeared on May 7, 2019.

To the Editor:

Jessica’s Grose’s article and introduction to the new NYT Parenting site struck a chord with me.  At first when I read that the New York Times would not be using the term “Natural Childbirth” I thought to myself “Well, isn’t that special”, in the voice of Dana Carvey’s Church Lady.  It seemed kind of precious to me to read, “It’s imprecise and can make families whose births are deemed not “natural” feel shame.”  I decided that I was being catty and I put the thought out of my head.

However, I have found myself today muddling over this article to figure out what exactly about this article doesn’t ring true. I do agree that women can feel let down by their birth experiences.  I would not want to minimize the feelings that woman have about the births of their children.  Childbirth can cause a myriad of trauma’s and feelings and women are entitles to feel anyway they want to feel about their childbirth experiences.

I have figured out what it is that is troublesome about this article.  It is the implication that women who wanted a natural childbirth but could not have one are more important than women who wanted a child but could not have one or woman who wanted IVF but could not afford it.  I have found articles on the New York Times website that are about: IVF, IUI, surrogacy, and private adoption.

Is the shame that women and men feel who want children and cannot have them for whatever reason and can not afford to seek other options any less important than the shame of women who could not have a natural childbirth? 

I believe that if “natural childbirth” is something that could be bought if enough money is exchanged the New York Times could have no trouble using that word on their new parenting website, NYT Parenting.  Is “Natural Childbirth” offensive because rich women can’t just have it automatically?

Just a though.

Sincerely,

Katie Nicholson