A challenge to SagefemmeAs usual, Sagefemme is disseminating misinformation:
I think a big piece of these belief systems is how doctors and other care providers put themselves into the space of 'saving' women. They're the HEROES that swooped in and saved everyone. The focus isn't on the interventions that caused the problems, but only on how a provider came in and literally saved a woman and her baby from the dangerous throes of birth. Once again, it places the woman in the role of needing to be saved - and perpetuates her own beliefs about her body not working properly for birth.So I'd like to challenge her to defend her statements with actual evidence. She seems quite sure that doctors only save women from the results of their own interventions. If that's true, it should be easy to prove.
So, Sagefemme, what is the baseline rate of neonatal and maternal mortality in the absence of modern obstetrics? What are the current rates of neonatal and maternal mortality? How many SPECIFIC cases of neonatal and maternal death (if any) are due to obstetric "interventions"? How does it compare to the number of neonatal and maternal deaths prevented by modern obstetrics?
Sagefemme also says:
When I see the staph articles, I think, "that's why you should have your babies at home!Then certainly, Sagefemme, you should be able to tell us how many neonatal and maternal deaths over the past year have been due to meth resistant staph (if any). How does that compare to the number of maternal and neonatal deaths from group B strep or herpes?
Obviously Sagefemme is not going to answer, because she doesn't know; if she knew, she would have used actual numbers. Anyone else can feel free to help her, though. Don't bother posting vague adjectives like "some" or "many", actual numbers only please.