6. Facts About Zion Birth by Carol Balizet

 Table of Contents

https://web.archive.org/web/20050206042401/http://homeinzion.com/facts.html

Facts About Zion Birth

by Carol Balizet

When God is allowed total reign, He does a total work, and He does a great deal more than the simple delivery of a perfect baby. Because of the faith and trust which have been released, because of the commitment to Him which this decision implies, God is able to do remarkable things. And the parents have the satisfaction of knowing that their baby is born into the presence of God, among God's people who are assembled from a motive of love, not for money.

---

I'd like to begin with a quote from one of our mothers, Bonnie. A friend had learned that Bonnie was planning a home birth, and was disquieted by the idea. "I; could never do anything like that," she confessed. "It; must take great faith to have a baby at home."
"No;," Bonnie contradicted. "It; mainly takes knowing the facts." And Bonnie is right. If you think you're better off in a hospital, if you assume you're safer, you don't know the facts.The purpose of this paper is to give you the facts.

Let's begin with this: in considering the idea of home childbirth, most people have to overcome two misconceptions, two ideas which are almost universally believed but which are in actuality just plain wrong. The first is that childbirth is a dangerous medical crisis requiring a great deal of technological intervention. This is not true. Childbirth is not a pathological state; on the contrary, it is a perfectly natural phenomenon for which the female body was designed. All mammals give birth to live offspring. It is a simple, uncomplicated process which does not involve a state of illness.

The second wrong idea is that it is better, safer, wiser, easier and normal to have a baby in a hospital. This is also untrue: home birth is safer by far, easier, cheaper, less painful and a great deal more emotionally satisfying than hospital birth. And if it is safer and easier, why would you pay that enormous sum to subject yourself and your baby to the hospital's control, and to routines which do nothing to help you or your baby? The answer of course is: it's traditional. But this tradition only holds true for right here, right now. In other countries, most births are handled by midwives, and only those cases with serious, risky complications are admitted to a hospital. World wide, only two out of every ten attended births are handled by doctors; the rest are attended by midwives. Home birth was the tradition in this country, too, at one time. A generation or so ago almost all deliveries in America were done at home; and don't think the move away from the home into the hospital made things better. Actually, our statistics for maternal and neonatal safety have fallen steadily since that time.

Statistically, we rank very poorly. In fact, we have the worst record of all the developed nations. We pay more for medical care than any other country, and it works the poorest - at least in obstetrics. (And of course the man's solution to our poor showing is to recommend more health care for expectant mothers.) Let's look at these statistics. We rank number 23, meaning there are twenty two countries in the world where it is safer to deliver a baby than in America. The best record is held by Holland, where between 75% and 80% of babies are born at home.

Some specifics:

• Hospital-born babies are six times more likely to suffer distress during labor,
• They are eight times more likely to be caught in the birth canal,
• They are four times more likely to need recussitation,
• They are four times more likely to become infected,
• They are thirty times more likely to suffer permanent injury,
• Their mothers are three times more likely to hemorrhage.
• That's right, the high risk is in the hospital.

Consider the risk of infection. Home is far safer because the baby and his mother share an immune system, so that he is impervious to the germs to which his mother is immune. Therefore the germs resident in his own home are unlikely to infect him. The hospital, however, has an abundance of germs, germs from all the sick people congregated there. Hospitals are really the dirtiest buildings in town! There the baby encounters a multitude of strange, pathogenic germs and infection is a real problem. Here's an interesting contrast: the AIDS virus is resident in hospitals; not one of our babies has ever had an infection of any sort.

How about cost? Hospital birth is increasingly expensive, partly due to rising malpractice costs. (And there's a message in that rise; it stems from the increasing number of judgments which the insurance carrier must pay.) A likely estimate of the total cost of a having a baby within the system is about $7,000 to $10,000. The cost at home is usually under $15. We make no charge at all.

Home birth is easier, too, because of all the support the mother receives from family and friends. She isn't lonely, or frightened, or in the hands of hirelings who have no love for her; she is in control of things. She chooses who attends the birth. She chooses her position. What she wears, what she eats and drinks, whether or not there is music, how warm or cool the room is - it's up to her.

And this, I think, is really the most significant difference between home and hospital birth: who is really in charge? Is it God, and by His power the baby's father and mother? Or is it some man, who is paid for his services and who is almost certainly trusting in his own "arm; of flesh" rather than in the power of God? If you have at your side the very One who created the baby, and you have given total control of the situation to the One who says, I am the Lord that healeth you... I will put no diseases on you which I put upon the Egyptians... I will perfect what concerns you... Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid, believe in Me... Call upon me in the day of trouble and I will deliver you... Come unto me all ye that labor..." well, you've really got hold of something.

When God is allowed total reign, He does a total work, and He does a great deal more than the simple delivery of a perfect baby. Because of the faith and trust which have been released, because of the commitment to Him which this decision implies, God is able to do remarkable things. And the parents have the satisfaction of knowing that their baby is born into the presence of God, among God's people who are assembled from a motive of love, not for money. The first sounds the baby hears are the voices of his own family, raised in song and praise to God, and the hands which touch him are those of loving Christians, not the hands of the unsaved who might be employed in the hospital. (There is great deal involved, and many things can be transferred, by the "laying; on of hands"). For homeborn babies, there are no drugs, no curses, no surrendered authority. These babies aren't hit, or cold, or stuck with needles, or removed from their mothers. They are alert, peaceful, whole.

So after nineteen years in supernatural, Christian birth, I am firmly convinced that home birth is not a risky, way-out-on-a-limb, hyper-faith kind of thing. I truly believe it is great wisdom to chose the method which has been proven safest, easiest, cheapest and most satisfying. Actually, I am fully persuaded that those who opt for home birth are protecting their babies from many dangers, both natural and spiritual.

That's the pragmatic view: it's better for the mother, better for the baby and better for the pocketbook. And those are valid considerations. But they aren't the most important one. The most important consideration for Christians should always be "What; is the will of God?" And again I maintain that even here - or especially here - home birth wins. In His Word, God has made it clear how He feels: about the headship of the father in the home, about not walking in the counsel of the ungodly, about not trusting in the arm of flesh, about a woman not uncovering her nakedness to some man who is not her husband, about abstaining from the use of drugs, about coming out of the world, about not rendering the things of God unto Caesar, about the blood of the Lamb being on the doorpost of the home, about women both suffering in childbearing and being saved through it, and about being the One who can meet our needs. And finally His unequivocal statement: "Without; faith it is impossible to please Him".;

Of course the flesh cries, "What; if something goes wrong?" I always want to finish the question with, "...; and all I have to depend on is God?" But it's a valid question. What if something does go wrong? Are they really safer trusting in the doctor and hospital and their technology, rather in God? Or are they assuming that nothing can possibly go wrong in a hospital? (Maybe they don't know the statistics which indicate that it's real dangerous to have a baby in an American hospital, that it's much safer at home.) But if they think that by choosing hospital birth they'll be given a guarantee of "No; Problems At All" they're mistaken. There are no guarantees.

Here lately I've had a problem not sounding like Elijah on Mount Carmel: " How long will you halt between two opinions? (New Testament version: be double-minded.) "If; Baal (or the hospital or doctor or technology) be god, then serve him, but if Jehovah be God, serve Him. For the God who created everything, who holds it all together by the word of His power, who says He is the God of all flesh and there is nothing too hard for Him, who's the One who designed childbirth in the first place, for this wonderful God of ours getting the baby out is a piece of cake! If the god they serve can't do that, then they need a new god!

It's pitiful to think how many Christians serve a God they consider inferior to the natural efforts of man.