Case against Lotus Birth by Jaikali

A friend of mine who is an Independent Midwife wrote the following and I agree to that.
Have a read:

Below I have listed some reasons that I oppose Lotus Birth for myself. This is not to judge anyone who chooses Lotus Birth, which is a very personal matter; but I do think anyone considering it--as with any other matter concerning birth and health--ought to be able to look at all sides before deciding. This is not intended to be the start of a debate, either; those who support Lotus Birth have other threads in which to speak of those beliefs as well as LB methods. I hope for this to be a thread which the reasons to let go of the placenta soon after birth are brought forward.

1. However emotionally attached babies get to their placentas (and there is no way for us to measure or know this), the fact is that that attachment is based on the placenta as a live and nourishing/nurturing presence. At birth, the placenta dies. In life, there is no other loved being whom we would carry around with us after s/he/it was dead. We would perhaps lovingly and ritually honor that loved one, even keep it to look at for a day or so (as in a 'wake' before funeral), and bury it with respect and thought. But once dead, no human culture nor animal species chooses to carry around the dead....it is dead, however alive, loved and important it once was. Being born into human life necessarily includes dealing with the mortal and transitory nature of physical existence. It is my thought that if there *is* an emotional attachment between baby and placenta, including a spiritual significance of the placenta and baby's separation from it, then that, IMO, is about baby's first emotional/spiritual experience with knowing mortality and letting go. We can delay that with a Lotus Birth, at best...but I can't see any real purpose in that for baby. "there is a time for every purpose under heaven".

2. It is dead meat and begins to rot immediately. It is against all natural tendencies and creature habits to keep dead rotting meat hanging around--all mammals either eat the placenta entirely, or eat just a bit of it and then get up and get far away from it to avoid flies and predators.

3. Perhaps the best way to honor the placenta and it's physical *and* spiritual significance to all concerned is to eat it. On a physical level, that would be the reusing/ingesting of a ton of important nutrients and hormones. On a spiritual level, it is akin to Christian communion. An modified form of that communion would be to plant something over a buried placenta.

4. The cord dries quite hard and stiff. This can't possibly be comfortable for the baby, as it can't help but poke and be easily pulled with every movement--and every single LB story I've heard includes accounts of the inconvenience of dealing with the attached package of placenta in part because of the stiffness of the cord. Baby's discomfort is often described in terms of his/her grief or displeasure with anyone 'messing with their placenta'---but I can't help but think that it is more like simple irritation at having this dried stiff thing still attached, impinging on every move and possibly hurting at the umbilicus. I think we need to be very careful about assuming we understand what a baby cares about and experiences; it can be just as disrespectful to be oversensitive on baby's behalf, as it is to be completely insensitive to baby's needs and feelings. Also a mother, I want nothing at all to be in the way of nursing, changing and cuddling my baby, and passing her/him around to loving others.

5. If placentas were meant to stay attached for a few days, they would not require any sort of salting or preserving or a special bag to keep them from being touched by baby or others...it just wouldn't rot.

ok, well that's about it for now. Does anyone else have other reasons they feel that cord is best cut at some point within a few hours of birth, and placenta either eaten or allowed to return to the earth through burial?