Your Questions About Natural Pregnancy Book

David asks…

‘Twilight: Breaking Dawn:’ Does it send the RIGHT message?

Most conspicuously, the wedding-night sex results in Bella becoming pregnant with a kind of human-vampire hybrid, which soon threatens the life of its mother. Told of the danger, Bella doesn’t even consider terminating the pregnancy.

They underscore that the book has an antiabortion message, especially as Bella is prone to running around telling people to call her fetus a baby.

“The way Bella’s pregnancy is depicted and discussed — along with the strong pro-abstinence messages of the saga, the religious underpinnings and the motherhood-is-the-natural-and-happy-ending-for-all-females tone -– result in a narrative that leans far more towards the anti-abortion stance.”

A fair enough conclusion, though it should be said that “Breaking Dawn” is hardly the first Hollywood film to wave aside the possibility of abortion in the case of an unwanted pregnancy.

Michelle answers:

I know it’s just fiction, but why should she (consider to) terminate her pregnancy, especially if it’s her choice to want to have the baby? What’s wrong with one sacrificing his/her own life for the sake and love of another. Bella was one to give up her life for those she loves — her mom and dad (by not wanting them to come in harm’s way, aka the evil vampires), Edward and Jacob, the Cullen family — why should she react differently concerning her unborn child? And look at reality. There are some mothers that gave up their lives for their unborn children, even when they had a fatal disease or what not. And that takes a lot of love and courage to do so. Bella became attached to the baby growing inside her and loved it no matter what it was doing to her. The baby wasn’t even intentionally doing any harm, that’s just how it was. She was a hybrid baby, and her accelerated growth and what she was was killing Bella — but that’s just who she was, it wasn’t her fault that she was part human and part vampire. And what’s wrong with the books having a anti-abortion stance? It’s Meyer’s book, so she is entitled to write whatever she wants. Besides, if Bella had an abortion, there would possibly be no story, would there?

Linda asks…

++ Glucose in urine 28 wks pregnant?

had midwife appt today and had plus 2 glucose in urine. I did the urine test after lunch. How likely is it that breakfast and lunch had affected my result? normally i do a sample before i have eaten but they didnt give me back my urine pot last visit. last 3 visits have been fine.

i had 3 pieces of small nimble bread (toast) with small amount of jam for breakfast, for lunch i had a coronation chicken baguette at the cafe with my brother. i know its not great health wise but i just picked quickly off the menu.

i have been booked in for gestation diabetes glucose tolerance test next wednesday but wondered if anyone knew anything about it and the affects of food before doing a sample.

feel a bit depressed, feel i have let my baby down before even giving birth!!!!!!!!!!!

also i have gained nearly 2 stone and the midwife said i had reached my maximum limit and cant gain anymore, i am 5ft 7 and weighed 10st pre-pregnancy and weigh nearly 12 stone now. i was put on steriods to keep the pregnancy because of natural killer cells and gained 1/2 stone from that!

feel really low 🙁

any feedback would be great. thanks xx

Michelle answers:

Yes it can vary on different times of the day or depending what you have eaten or drank in the last few hours before your sample. I had to have this test because of a family history of diabetes and the results came back fine so don’t worry until you have too.

Paul asks…

Native English speakers, is this text free of mistakes?

“Does it make sense to say that a baby was born feet first and via a C-section (so he died)?

I read that in a book.

A woman’s three first babies were born feet first and by a C-section. And they were all born dead. By the way, this happened in the 1940’s.

Currently, I hear that when a baby is ‘standing’ in the mother’s uterus, the pregnancy is of high risk and a C-section will be required since the baby incurs the danger of being born asphixiated in case of a natural childbirth.

So, how can a baby be born feet first by C-section?”
By the way, on a 1-10 scale, how would you rate my English?
Liquid Crystal:

No offence, but I’m sure you don’t know anything whatsoever about the question. That’s the real problem.

Michelle answers:

That’s odd, unless the book is referring to the doctor’s pulling the baby feet first. The baby comes out directly from the incision made on the abdomen and through the uterus.

Your English is at 8.5.

Mandy asks…

Does it make sense to say that a baby was born feet first and via a C-section (so he died)?

I read that in a book.

A woman’s three first babies were born feet first and by a C-section. And they were all born dead. By the way, this happened in the 1940’s.

Currently, I hear that when a baby is ‘standing’ in the mother’s uterus, the pregnancy is of high risk and a C-section will be required since the baby incurs the danger of being born asphixiated in case of a natural childbirth.

So, how can a baby be born feet first by C-section?

Michelle answers:

Just to point out to those saying that babies cant be born breech – i was a breech baby,delivered vaginally,in 1984

it is high risk,and there is chance of death because of the contractions.this is where forceps come into play.these will protect the head of the child through the birth canal

as for the writer,it’s worth noting that technology was vastly different in those days.it might be that they had got into distress and had died in utero before the decision to perform a section was taken.the position of the baby makes little difference to a section – a breech baby is just as easy to deliver as a baby in the correct position

Powered by Yahoo! Answers